On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Jim Knoble wrote: > My point was that 'lsb-blah-ththth.lsb' is rather redundant. Either > call packages 'lsb-blah-ththth.rpm' or 'blah-ththth.lsb'. Both is too > much. Well, the leading lsb- is because that is the name of the package, the trailing .lsb is because that is the file format. We could possibly have non-lsb packages using the lsb format, particularly if the lsb format becomes something more than it is.. Jason