On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:29:38AM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote:
> > Does naming packages .lsb make that transition any easier/harder?
> The LSB spec specifies that packages we are to use the "lsb-" prefix. We are
> not to create/use a ".lsb" suffix. The RPM file format that we are using should
> be readable by both rpm(1) and alien(1). There is no need to introduce a new
> ".lsb" file type.
".lsb" is a filename extension, not a file type. It's a marketing tool
both for non-RPM distributions, and for the LSB itself.
Joey and Erik have already described the need for the new filetype, and
worked out a way of doing it in an appropriately compatible way.
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/pkgnameconv.html
Pointing at a spec that was rushed and hence doesn't fit the problem
space isn't really helpful. As distribution vendors, do we really have
to flame you guys for seven months to get every little change accepted?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgpfDt1Qa_Mdu.pgp
Description: PGP signature