Re: Package System specification

[Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>]

* "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> This is a known problem, and we've discussed this already.  It means
> that when we specify an LSB RPM, it can only use dependencies which are
> defined by the LSB (which will probably be prefixed by lsb-*, or some
> such).  It is expected that distributions will have to load some kind of
> "LSB compliance" package which will make the proper LSB definitions
> expeced by the LSB, and create the appropriate LSB filter libraries, as
> necessary.  
> 
> It's also important to remember that we don't have to solve the entire
> packaging problem.  We need something that works for Quake3, TurboTax,
> Oracle, etc.  I.e., third-party applications.  

OK. But then this dependencies have to be defined first and then we can
start to talk about standardizing packaging. At least this would make
sure we can talk in technical terms about technical problems.

> We don't have to standardize the dependencies necessary to make a glibc
> or e2fsprogs packages (i.e., system packages) install cleanly across
> different distributions.  That's a harder problem, and we're not trying
> to solve it.

If these realms can be cleanly separated, this is sensible. The scope of
this dependencies has to be defined very cleanly then, though.


        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!