Re: extension of lsb packages
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:01:45AM -0500, Jim Knoble wrote:
> 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).
lsb-testsuite would be an incorrect name for an lsb package. It would
be something like lsb-freestandards.org-lsb-testsuite-1.1.i386.lsb
Jim, not only is it a 'good idea' to put 'lsb-' in front of LSB
packages, we *MUST* have a namespace to avoid collisions of package