extension of lsb packages
aj at azure.humbug.org.au
Sun Mar 3 18:21:46 PST 2002
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 04:44:51AM -0500, Jim Knoble wrote:
> I don't have a problem with '.lsb' as a recommended extension for
> LSB-compliant packages. I do have a problem with:
> Use lsb-rpm to install lsb-vendorproductstuff.lsb on your LSB system,
> as per the LSB.
> Too many L's, S's, and B's. Makes one wonder whether one is speaking
> of LSB or another confusingly similar TLA ending in 'D'.
``The file packages/lsb-foo.lsb on the CD is an LSB 1.1 compliant package.
Please consult your distribution's documentation on how to install it.''
The LSB spec doesn't provide any standard way to install a package, so
"as per the LSB" isn't really appropriate, and that quality vendors will
probably provide a simple (graphical) tool to do so, that matches their
normal installation tools.
Note also that the goal is to make every distribution LSB compliant, so
that "LSB system" will be equivalent to "Linux system" and thus redundant.
It's probably worth specing something like "LSB compliant vendors will
include an easily locatable section in their documentation detailing
precisely how to install LSB compliant packages on their system."
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20020304/c651a496/attachment.pgp
More information about the lsb-discuss