Re: extension of lsb packages
On Mar 02, Erik Troan wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:41:05 -0700
> "Matt Taggart" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Another thing I've been thinking about is transition to a future lsb package
> > format. Does naming packages .lsb make that transition any easier/harder?
> This is Unix (well, almost) folks. Any tool that depends on the extension of a filename to work properly is simply broken. DOS did this in 1981; it's time to get over it (yes, I know make and friends are exceptions, but even that is *default* behavior, not intrinsic to the tool).
> No packaging system for Linux I've ever heard of is filename dependent, including Slackware's tarballs. Having the lsb mandate a file extension is a huge step in the wrong direction, IMNSHO.
> RPM provides good magic(5) that lets you find out what kind of package something is. You do have to open the file and read the first sector, but that's unavoidable given the above.
Well, perhaps the solution is, as joeyh suggested, to munge the magic
in such a way that the package looks like an RPM to RPM (so systems
that use RPM as the package manager don't need to provide a separate
lsb-rpm, just the lsb package infrastructure), but can be
distinguished from a "normal" RPM by tools that need to care about the
difference (like alien) without parsing the package dependencies.
Chris Lawrence <firstname.lastname@example.org> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/