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

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

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 08:10:19AM -0000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> 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".

  Problem is that designing standard based on API are a real pain, all the
standard body I have been involved in try to avoid this like the plague
because it's very hard to make them portable to any language, are a real
PITA to version, and the fact that usually standard are build for
interoperability, and having a common API does NOT provide interoperability.
IMHO it a Dead End.

> 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

  No it means:
    - it will take 10 times more resources
    - if you don't have the right persons on the standardization group
      it will become a disaster
    - it is far more prone to Internal Property Screwups than standardizing
      existing practice.

Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

Reply to: