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

Re: Packaging stuff

   From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <Anthony.Youngman@ECA-International.com>
   Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:27:01 +0100

   Yes - but in order to upgrade and/or delete you need the dependency
   information. And I did say that proof one addressed the problem of getting
   the software ONTO the system, thereby explicitly excluding getting it off
   (deletion or upgrading)

You don't need dependency information to upgrade or delete an
LSB-compliant application.  That's the whole point of the restrictions
we place on what a LSB 1.0 compliant RPM-formst must look like.

(Note also that we don't force ISV's to use RPM's.  In some cases,
database vendors already have their own very complicated installation
programs and .tgz files, and if they want to use them, that's their
progative.  It means that users won't be able to do an easy uninstall,
but that's their business.)

   But please, I'm trying to understand your vision. And everywhere I see
   logical flaws. By all means look at mine and point out the flaws to me. But
   don't use an argument about deleting files, to attack a place where I'm
   adding files.

Are you?  If you're really trying to understand, why don't you try to
read the specificaiton, and look at some of the history of the mailing
list, instead of simply attacking the LSB and then waiting for us to
defend it.  That takes a lot of time, and I don't have a lot of time to
waste.  If everyone used this method to learn, we wouldn't have time to
actually spend doing anything useful. 

The fact that you thought the X libraries were optional, and defended
your ignorance on the grounds that no one had bothered to correct your
attacks based on that ignorance, doesn't speak much repsect for the
collective time of the group of people who have been working on the LSB.

							- Ted

Reply to: