Nick, I appreciate the enthusiasm you put into this thread, but in my opinion this is the wrong audience to discuss a new installation packaging scheme. As I understand LSB, it's objective is to watch the GNU/Linux distribution market and turn de-facto standards (or commonly used practices) into writing and declare a written standard based on what most distributions are doing already. Introducing new technology is (as I undertsand it) not in the scope of LSB. RPM seems to be used by the majority of distributions. We all have our problems with RPM but still it's the most popular tool so far. Rather than wasting energy on the discussion wheter or not to define RPM infrastructure (RPM database, package names, ...) as standard in LSB or not, we should rather work on the still unresolved RPM issues, like mentioned in first mail. Your approach sounds interesting and may be worth looking into. However I'd like to see a tool that works this way before I can consider to enforce it's use in LSB. BB -- Bodo Bauer Principal Software Engineer firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.turbolinux.com Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value A.E.
Description: PGP signature