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

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
> registry.

I thought part of solving the namespace problem was being able to have 
packages coexist in the filesystem?

Matt Taggart        Linux Development Lab
taggart@fc.hp.com   HP Linux Systems Operation

Reply to: