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

Re: extension of lsb packages

Circa 2002-Mar-03 23:42:15 -0700 dixit Jason Gunthorpe:

: 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.

Don't be pedantic.  The leading 'lsb-' is because someone thought it
would be a good idea to put 'lsb-' in front of every LSB-compliant
package.  It's not.  It's too long, and it's got too many lsb's, and
it's too easy to confuse 'lsb-' with the supplier of the package (as in
lsb-testsuite-N.NN-R.i386.lsb) or with part of the name of the package
(as in lsb-1.1-1.i386.lsb).

Many package names are already long enough as it is.  Making them longer:


(simply by way of hypothetical example) is a bit too much, don't you

: We could possibly have non-lsb packages using the lsb format,
: particularly if the lsb format becomes something more than it is..

Who cares?  The package manager simply cares whether the file format is
correct, and whether the dependencies are fulfilled.  If the
dependencies don't pan out, then:  Tough.  The package doesn't install.
The supplier/packager is to blame.

There's no good reason to encode "LSB Compliance/Certification" in the
name of the package.  That's already taken care of by (1) the package
dependencies, and (2) the claim of compliance or certification by the

jim knoble | jmknoble@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/

Reply to: