Simon Epsteyn (seva@null.pharm.uic.edu) wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote: > > > Regarding my attempt to rekindle discussion and explain why > > I do not believe we should standardize on any package > > manager -- I think I can distill the responses into three > > categories. > > I think the idea was to standardize FILE FORMAT not PACKAGE MANAGER. > > RPM is the LSB file format, you have to provide LSB way to install LSB > compliant RPMs, the PACKAGE MANGER is your choice. not only the file format, but also the structure of it's content. LANANA is a good thought and I think we should consider to reinitiate the project. 'lsb' as base dependency for all LSB dependent packages is fine, but I think we need more well defined names in a finer granularity. Who is currently maintaining LANANA? I'll be happy to help out and continue (or better 'start') working on a proposal. Besides this it needs to be stated what tools can be expected to be present at which state. Inspecially for pre/post scripts this is an important issue to know. BB -- Bodo Bauer Principal Software Engineer bb@turbolinux.com http://www.turbolinux.com Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value A.E.
Attachment:
pgpkfsl8ttTNU.pgp
Description: PGP signature