[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Chapter 13 again ...

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> Having been advised (by private email) that the rpm thing was a FAQ,
> I've skimmed the archives, and the only thing I could find near what I
> was bothered about was "standardising the install package", a two-mail
> thread in September 1998. (The easily accessible archives don't go
> much further back.)

Look at the thread called "RFC", put forward by Robert Current in March of
this year on lsb-discuss.

Also look for the thread called "Package System specification" by David
Cantrell in the April lsb-spec archives.

There's a lot of good discussion in those threads.

> And it doesn't matter a damn whether my distro is LSB compliant, if my
> security manager demands that all sensitive packages are compiled from
> source then my *installation* CANNOT be LSB compliant :-(

I'm not sure what you are driving at about this.  The LSB is NOT concerned
about whether or not your _installation_ is LSB-compliant, it's concerned
about whether your _distribution_ is LSB compliant.

And, just because your security manager demands source compilation doesn't
mean that you can't use LSB-compliant packages.  You can always take the
source RPM and recompile it.  Then you have a RPM that's also "compiled
from source".


| Jeffrey Watts                     |
| watts@jayhawks.net         o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer         | "The assertion that 'all men are        |
| Network Systems Management |  created equal' was of no practical use |
| Sprint Communications      |  in effecting our separation from Great |
o----------------------------|  Britain and it was placed in the       |
                             |  Declaration not for that, but for      |
                             |  future use."                           |
                             |  -- Abraham Lincoln                     |

Reply to: