bb at turbolinux.com
Tue Oct 24 13:39:40 PDT 2000
I appreciate the enthusiasm you put into this thread, but in
my opinion this is the wrong audience to discuss a new installation
packaging scheme. As I understand LSB, it's objective is to
watch the GNU/Linux distribution market and turn de-facto standards
(or commonly used practices) into writing and declare a written
standard based on what most distributions are doing already.
Introducing new technology is (as I undertsand it) not in the scope
RPM seems to be used by the majority of distributions. We all have
our problems with RPM but still it's the most popular tool so far.
Rather than wasting energy on the discussion wheter or not to
define RPM infrastructure (RPM database, package names, ...)
as standard in LSB or not, we should rather work on the still
unresolved RPM issues, like mentioned in first mail.
Your approach sounds interesting and may be worth looking into.
However I'd like to see a tool that works this way before I can
consider to enforce it's use in LSB.
Bodo Bauer Principal Software Engineer
bb at turbolinux.com http://www.turbolinux.com
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20001024/4711a0c5/attachment.pgp
More information about the lsb-discuss