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

Re: Packaging stuff

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Dan Kegel wrote:

> "Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
> > in other words, an LSB-compliant application *must* be completely self
> > contained for anything over and above the LSB. So if several apps all use
> > the same library, there will be one copy on the system for every app :-(
> I had missed this point.  That's why we don't need a standardized list
> of package names for packages intended to be installed on any LSB-compliant system:


> This is a good point.  If the LSB defines only a single pseudopackage,
>   lsb-1.0

This is the intent.

> as the thing apps should depend on, that prevents us from properly 
> representing "a headless but otherwise LSB system".

It shouldn't. The requirement on X is minimal. It requires that a couple
of base libraries be present (like Xlib), but it does not require that the
system have an Xserver (or graphics hardware). One of the wonderful things
about X is that it works over the network.

> Presumably the LSB will also define more fine grained pseudopackages, e.g.
>   lsb-posix-1.0
>   lsb-fhs-1.0
>   lsb-x-1.0
> etc. to support things like headless systems (which would have lsb-posix-1.0
> and lsb-fhs-1.0 'installed', but not lsb-x-1.0).

There has been some discussion on having different profiles, but the answer
has not made itself obvious yet. This is something that will need to be
addressed in the future, but having someting to be able to partition is
more important, and is of a higher priority.


Stuart R. Anderson                               anderson@metrolink.com

Metro Link Incorporated                          South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way                           129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309                   Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500                              voice: 803.951.3630
fax:   954.938.1982                              SkyTel: 800.405.3401

Reply to: