Re: Standard package names (was: Re: Packaging and installation)
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Dan Kegel wrote:
> I don't see a common package namespace listed at http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/
> but it's such a good idea it must have been discussed before.
> Presumably, packages that are part of all minimal conforming distributions
> should be named the same. LSB should specify those package names.
> The initial set of names should be as close to current practice as possible.
Instead, a single meta package will be create whose presence indicates that
whatever needs to be installed to support an LSB app is installed. This package
itself may contain no files (but it could), or it could simply be a list of
other package names in its dependencies.
This way, LSB apps only have to depend on 1 well defined package name, and not
have to deal with all the variations in package names accross distributions.
Stuart R. Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
fax: 954.938.1982 SkyTel: 800.405.3401