Re: extension of lsb packages
In message <[🔎] 20020302014105.2316237CF5@carmen.fc.hp.com>, Matt Taggart
>Joey Hess writes...
>> This seems less than optimal to me. If lsb packages were required to end
>> with ".lsb", then there would be no worries about source packages being
>> confused with lsb packages, and no worries about alien or another tools
>> generating something that looks broadly like a lsb package but was not
>> intended to be one, and there would be less special-purpose code in
>You have a really good point. Can someone please explain why we currently do
>it the way we do?
>Another thing I've been thinking about is transition to a future lsb package
>format. Does naming packages .lsb make that transition any easier/harder?
>If this issue is holding up the adoption of lsb on non-rpm systems we need to
>address it ASAP.
No it's not holding up adoption on non-rpm as far as I'm aware.
And I'm hoping (with some justification, I believe), that this whole
mess is going to get dropped completely with LSB 2. The decision has
been made that with LSB 1 we are going to specify a subset of what is
currently being used. With LSB 2 we are hopefully going to specify the
way it *should* be done. In other words, an api that allows any install
tool to talk to any distro package database. So if your employer insists
on Red Hat, and you like apt-get etc, you can install apt-get and use
it, and your Red Hat Package Database remains fully up-to-date at all
times ... :-)
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999