Re: extension of lsb packages
George Kraft IV writes...
> The LSB specified RPM v3 file format is not unique; therefore, I don't
> understand the reason for the .lsb file suffix.
If the lsb header changes are made then it will be possible to distinguish
between "vanilla rpms" and "lsb rpms". I'm assuming such a change would be
made to the rpm format as a whole, not just the lsb variant of it. So if this
happens then, yes, there's no reason for a different suffix due to file
format. Until this happens how are tools/users supposed to differentiate?
My original question still stands, would using an .lsb suffix make
transitioning to a future lsb file format easier? Both from a tools
perspective and perhaps more importantly from an end user perspective. If
users get used to dealing with .lsb files will that make it easier when
they're no longer rpms?
> Let me backup and correct myself. The LSB specifies an "lsb-" prefix for the
> package name ("Name" specified inside the RPM .spec configuration file), not
> the RPM file name itself. So, for application "foo" we have the foo.spec
> configuration file with the package name defined as "lsb-foo". The user
> would install "foo.rpm", but would see "lsb-foo" in the system's software
I thought part of solving the namespace problem was being able to have
packages coexist in the filesystem?
Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab
email@example.com HP Linux Systems Operation