Re: PROPOSAL: command line for LSB package program
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Daniel Bradley wrote:
> >
> > "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I personally wish we would just standardize RPM instead... it really has
> > > become the de facto standard in the Linux world. I realize this is
> > > politically incorrect to say in front of Slackware and Debian people,
> > > but it really is the truth.
> >
> > In that case lets standardize on Windows instead... it really has become
> > the de facto standard in the computing world. :)
> >
> > Perhaps standardize on the command line interface while changing the
> > name to lsb-package, but definately not standardizing on the actual
> > executable.
> >
>
> WHY should we change the name? We didn't change the name of
> /usr/sbin/sendmail to lsb-mta because we standardized the interface.
Yeah but after it was done I think a lot of people realized it was a
stupid thing to do.
> All you do by changing the name is breaking all existing scripts.
Oh come on!, all you need is a symlink from lsb-package to rpm.
This makes a lot more sense than having a binary called rpm that is not
in fact RedHat's rpm. This would just be a huge source of confusion.
Also it could create conflicts if you wanted to install RedHat's rpm
onto your lsb box.
The world in general would assume that rpm == RedHat's rpm, not just the
rpm interface. This would inevitably lead to assumptions about the
backend database and other implementation specific stuff.
Also when the rpm interface changes (more rpm specific features are
added) people might assume that the lsb interface might change as well.
As ISVs are currently likely to test on Red Hat their install scripts
would seem to work, they would assume they're LSB complient because they
are using "rpm", but in fact they wouldn't be.
When the rpm interface is changed all that needs to be done is to create
a wrapper program called "lsb-package" that only supports the
lsb-package interface while calling rpm.
Cheers,
Daniel Bradley.
Reply to: