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