Re: .rpm? .lsb??
På 1999-Sep-26 klokka 20:18:07 -0400 skrivet Raul Miller:
: Almost all of which can be addressed through simple specifications.
But they are *already* addressed by RPM. Why reinvent them?
: formats...
: ^
The RPM *package format* hasn't changed significantly since rpm-2.4.x
back in 1997. The *specfile format* has changed somewhat, as have the
API to the RPM library and the user interface to the rpm command.
: The various incompatible rpm programs do indeed deal with such things
: for the appropriate .rpm files. But that's not some kind of sacred
: magic which is only associated with the letters rpm.
Obviously, the LSB should specify a particular version of the package
format, and quite likely of the rpm command (if it is included). This
is no different than specifying a kernel version, C library version,
etc. Alternatatively, the LSB can specify an interface which happens
to correspond to a particular version of rpm. This is no different
from specifying an interface which corresponds to a particular version
of a kernel or C library.
Get over it, already.
: Trivial example of how to do something analogous using tgz format:
[...]
It is not the purpose of LSB to foster not-invented-here syndromes. As
has been mentioned several times, not only does RPM already exist, but
it's also already widely used. The only tarball `package' format that
i'm aware of that's at all widely used is in Slackware Linux, which,
last i looked, was somewhat limited and not really widely used.
--jim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% jim knoble %%%%%%%% jmknoble@pobox.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Reply to: