Re: next debian stable ?
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:48:48 -0600
email@example.com (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> > Don't count on it. LSB dictates packages be done in RPM instead of
> > something a bit more neutral like tarballs.
> Actually it still helps immensely. Because then the conversion
> program 'alien' knows what it needs to support and can do a good job
> of it. Alien works very well on LSB compliant rpms. RPMs that give
> trouble are the ones which are both not compliant and poorly written.
> There are a lot of those. So pushing LSB is still a Good Thing for
> LSB levels the playing field between the different distros. Otherwise
> people really would need to target a specific distro for their
> software. In that setting you can guess that the one that starts with
> the largest mindshare would win regardless of technical merits. It
> would completely lock out any newer startups. Support the LSB.
Yes and no. Your point about specifications for RPM is a good one. But it
would have been better yet if LSB simply said "packages must have/provide
the following ..." and left the package format open.
By specifying RPM the LSB did *not* level the playing field. It tilted that
field towards RPM packaging (which is away from Debian, and I believe that