Re: Standard package names (was: Re: Packaging and installation)
Previously Dan Kegel wrote:
> 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.
> This sounds like a small, reasonable task. Is it?
The best we can do (at least in the near future) is define a set of packages
that declare a form of LSB conformancy. So a package like "fsg-fhs" will
mean that if it is installed the system has everything that the fhs states.
Versioned dependencies can be used of course.
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| email@example.com http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |