[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB Spec 1.2 criticism



On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 09:44:19AM +0200, Hendrik Visage wrote:
> Their would a "problem" for systems/packages that doesn't have their own domain
> name nor Stock Code on an SE. ie. SF/Savanah/Berlios hosted projects that
> provides installation binaries.

This is easily solved by having sub components: if I wanted to make LSB
packages of ifupdown, which is hosted on sourceforge, I could call them:

	/etc/init.d/sourceforge.net-ifupdown-foo
	/etc/init.d/sourceforge.net-ifupdown-bar

without worrying unduly about conflicts. I wonder if guidelines on this
would be better off in the LSB spec somewhere, or in the online docs of
sourceforge and similar projects.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpKAbty8T_5c.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: