bb at turbolinux.com
Tue Oct 24 14:10:32 PDT 2000
Simon Epsteyn (seva at null.pharm.uic.edu) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:
> > Regarding my attempt to rekindle discussion and explain why
> > I do not believe we should standardize on any package
> > manager -- I think I can distill the responses into three
> > categories.
> I think the idea was to standardize FILE FORMAT not PACKAGE MANAGER.
> RPM is the LSB file format, you have to provide LSB way to install LSB
> compliant RPMs, the PACKAGE MANGER is your choice.
not only the file format, but also the structure of it's content. LANANA
is a good thought and I think we should consider to reinitiate the
'lsb' as base dependency for all LSB dependent packages is fine, but I think
we need more well defined names in a finer granularity. Who is currently
maintaining LANANA? I'll be happy to help out and continue (or better 'start')
working on a proposal.
Besides this it needs to be stated what tools can be expected to be present
at which state. Inspecially for pre/post scripts this is an important issue
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/20001024/304fd25a/attachment.pgp
More information about the lsb-discuss