On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:02:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > mv lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.rpm lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.lsb # ? > > (The .lsb distinguishes LSB packages from Red Hat/SuSE/Mandrake/* .rpm > packages, using _'s instead of -'s and .'s lets you get the version and > architecture from the filename automatically as well as visually. The _ > naming matches the way .debs are named by default) You don't have to convince me. I like the Debian way. ;) I think the current spec specifies .rpm though, although I know .lsb has been discussed. I assume for lsb 1.0 this can't change...? Also, the convention of dashes I'm using seems to be the way most people do it, although this isn't specified in spec. I prefer it Anthony/Debian's way. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? -drew -- M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law
Attachment:
pgpe2SnEUEiUl.pgp
Description: PGP signature