Re: Comments: Draft spec and package format/naming
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, James Dingwall wrote:
> The current spec reads:
>
> The current "plan-of-record" is to specify RPM as the file format. It is
> supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of
> distributions, and so far, no one has pointed out any deficiencies.
>
> I would suggest that while the actual format of the package is possibly
> retained, it would be wise to change the actual extension from .rpm to .lsb
> (for example). This will avoid confusion with the legacy packages that are
> inevitably going to remain on the net.
.lsp (Linux Software Package) would be beter.
Hugo.
--
Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland
hvdkooij@caiw.nl http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Use of any of my email addresses for unsollicited (commercial)
email is a clear intrusion of my privacy and illegal!
Reply to: