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

Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec



Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
> (cc: me, please; I'm not on the list ATM.)
> 
> Mainly in regards to the init script section.
> 
> > Package Dependencies
> >
> > Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on other
> > system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides" it must
> > only provide a virtual package name which is registered to that
> > application.
> 
> This seems *very* broken to me.
> 
> What this implies:
> - if a package requires any 'reasonably standard' component of a distribution,
>   but one that isn't specifically stated in the LSB, that means that the
>   package must include/statically link all these components.

Or, that 'reasonably standard' component could itself be delivered in an
LSB package.  

The language above assumes that only applications will be delivered in LSB
packages but I see no reason to prevent the maintainers of such components
from building their own LSB packages for use by several ISV application
packages.

Dependency interelationships between LSB packages have been considered and
are still implicitly allowed and I will fight to keep them legal.  There
are too many ISV applications that benifit substantially from being chopped
into optional & infrastructure components.  

Of course, if an ISV delivers packages that depend on packages from another
ISV or from a classic Open Source project, they had better be sure that the
required packages are available to the installer or their software isn't
going to be worth much.

	Albert.




--
Albert den Haan, Lead Developer @ Linux Port Team . Corel Corporation
albertd@corel.com  (613) 728-0826 x 5318
-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "postmaster@umail.corel.com".  
The poster's email address is "albertd@corel.com".



Reply to: