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

RE: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] Re: extension of lsb packages

Title: RE: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] Re: extension of lsb packages

Which is why I'm trying to get a new standard that says "here's an api. With this, ANY packaging program can talk to ANY distro package database and query it".

Bingo. All packaging problems solved. You can run any installer on top of any distro and check dependencies, log the fact that you've installed stuff, etc etc. The trouble with current install mechanisms is that they are installer, DBMS, packager, and god knows what else all stuffed into one bundle. If we separate the separate functions into separate tools like all good linusers do, then the problem gets a lot simpler.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is this becomes a "standard creating" exercise, rather than the current "codifying existing standards" exercise and there'll be horrendous politics. But if you think about it, the proposed approach will work perfectly, even with an ISV who wishes to create a totally proprietary, obscured to the hilt, 100% totally self owned code, setup.exe to run on a lsb-compliant system, AND IT WILL WORK. If we can address and allow for that setup, it then makes it easy for every one else to be far more sharing and co-operative.

Think about it. Email me off line. It's on-topic for LSB 2, but we're not supposed to be discussing it for LSB 1.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Wilson [mailto:msw@redhat.com]
Sent: 05 March 2002 20:24
To: George Kraft IV
Cc: Matt Taggart; lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org; lsb-taskforce1@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] Re: extension of lsb packages

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 12:54:08PM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote:
> 2)  ...
> ...
> Unfortunately resources got tight and the team stagnated in the
> proto-type phase.

I think the main problem here is that the taskforce was attempting to create a standard for packaging.  What really needs to happen here is for the Linux Community (and perhaps even other groups like Sun, HP, IBM, HP, Apple, and *BSD) to come up with a BETTER packaging solution than what we have.  It's our job to document de facto standards and best working practice as well defined, testable, certifiable standards.  Facilitating industry to make these kinds of advancements, while a bit out of our scope, would be nice.  Making a new standard from scratch is a doomed path.



Lsb-taskforce1 mailing list Lsb-taskforce1@lists.sourceforge.net

This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system.

Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.

Reply to: