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

Re: Good enough

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:

> (1) We already decided on RPM, get over it.


> (1) Stupid answer.  If RPM is an inadequate answer, and I
> believe it is, then let's revisit the topic.  If we can't
> ever get to the point where we can admit to making any
> mistakes, then we're not good for anything and might as
> well close up shop.

You insist that if you install files manually that the packaging systems
should keep pace.

Now this is up to the packager of the distribution. If they can't maintain
updates that changes files without changing the database system used by
said distribution that is up to the manufacturer of that distribution. If
they demand you use their packaging system to keep the system in shape
they created you have to play with their rules regardless what packaging
system that distribution uses.

If you want to screw up your LSB compliant distribution by manual updates
no one is going to stop you. But you just made it loose the LSB compliant
state. People will shoot themselves in the foot plenty of times because
they are stupid enough to use tools they don't understand and there is
just no way to stop them.

Unless an alternative is given that contains both:
 - A good solid description
 - A good solid implementation

It will be quite useless to beat this horse to death that has been beaten
beyond death for more then a dozen times allready.

Perhaps this list should become moderate to prevent these avalances of

I've had my say here and will keep quite untill someone comes up with a
workable idea instead of some remarks. The LSB is allready long overdue
and I don't want it get stalled even more by these dead horses.

As for casting votes. One vote per distribution willing to become LSB all
the way sounds fair to me.


Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ  Maasland
hvdkooij@caiw.nl	http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/
Quoting this tagline is illegal! (http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html)

Reply to: