Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 03:14:31PM +0200, Johannes Poehlmann wrote:
> > >> 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.
>
> > >What this implies:
>
> This is not so strange as it looks.
>
> When I was working for a big logistic Company they suffered from
> the Windows DLL syndrome. To stop it, they demanded that their
> application writers supplied all DLL's the application needed,
> in the directory, where the application was installed.
>
> As long, as we do not have unified packaging and unified naming (LANANA)
> there is no other way to go IMHO.
I've seen variations on this, where the developers supplied something
very similar to a mini FHS within /opt/productname
/bin
/etc
/doc
/lib
/var
You could relink these to wherever it made sense on *your* filesystems, and they could
always find their configs, data, pid's and so on. It was also consistant for their
product across AIX, HPsUX and Solaris and "Linux" (whatever *that* might be).
Richard - just a midnight thought -
--
Unix: Your gun, Your bullet, Your foot, Your choice.
M$-CE/ME/NT: Same as Unix, BUT: No choice, and We Aim Higher.
Have a nice day ;-) Richard Higson mailto:richard.higson@gt.owl.de
Reply to: