Re: extension of lsb packages

[George Kraft IV <gk4@austin.ibm.com>]

Let me try to answer the last set of questions.

1) the name space issue is with respect to package names (not RPM v3 file
names); therefore, the need to get LANANA online is important.

2) changing the rpm file format to determine if it is an LSB package is a design
issue.  I *restarted* the lsb packaging taskforce  a year ago.  That team was to
outline what could be used among the lsb distributions today (least common
denominator), and they were to produce a comprehensive design for *everyone* to
migrate to for future packaging.  Unfortunately resources got tight and the team
stagnated in the proto-type phase.  I would welcome anyone that has the time and
expertise to read the logs and notes, then summarize what was designed in the
lsb packaging tasforce; however, I want to avoid enhancements like ".lsb"
without a comprehensive design.  There needs to be a full design, proposal, and
acceptance (in the community and lsb) before doing anything like ".lsb".

I hope this helps clarify the "*lsb*" naming issues.

George (gk4)