Re: LSB Spec 1.0 Criticism
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 09:10:20AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 01:26:33PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Yes, which is why the hard-coded user/group id isn't that big of a
> > deal. It only applies for those folks who wish to distribute LSB
> > application using raw cpio files. If we decide this isn't
> > particularly important, we can drop the requirements on the uid
> > ownership for bin.
>
> If cpio is the distribution medium, why all the hoopla over rpm? If rpm
> is the standard, why the concern about cpio?
Cpio isn't *the* distribution medium, but it's a possible distribuion
medium. ISV's aren't *required* to use RPM format packages. They can
also supply their own installation program/scripts, so long as those
installation program/scripts only use interfaces which are guaranteed
to be available on LSB compliant distributions.
What the LSB does require of LSB compliant distributions is the
ability to install packages which use a very restricted subset of the
RPM package format. In fact, by requiring that it only use RPM format
features which are documented in the Maximum RPM book, it effectively
restricts the packages to use features which are backwards compatible
to RPM version 2.3. That plus the other restrictions should be enough
to guarantee that 'alien' should be able to handle any LSB packages.
This allows ISV's who wish to use some kind of advanced packaging
technology to do so, so that users can easily remove and upgrade
packages --- something which users generally don't have if they use a
typical vendor's adhoc shell-script installation scheme.
- Ted
Reply to: