extension of lsb packages

Theodore Tso tytso at mit.edu
Mon Mar 4 07:46:03 PST 2002


On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:16:14AM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:16:08AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > Who cares?  The package manager simply cares whether the file format is
> > > correct, and whether the dependencies are fulfilled.  If the
> > 
> > It also has to be able to distinguish RedHat, LSB and non-LSB versions of
> > the same package. Thats what the lsb- is for.
> 
> s/RedHat/Red Hat/g
> 
> The lsb- is here to establish a namespace for packages.  It's
> essential for that reason alone.  I couldn't care less what the
> extension is.

Matt's absolutely right here.  Remember, there are two things that we
need to be concerned about.  The filename is cosmetic, and only is an
issue when we're installing the system.  

Far more important is the name of the package, since we can't let that
name conflict with what the various distributions are using.  (This by
the way is the main problem non-distribution provided rpm files
generally have far more problems than Debian packages; Debian enforces
a namespace, which everyone uses, even people doing unofficial
packages.  Unfortunately the many distributions using RPM have not
agreed on a namespace, so not only are conflicts a headache, but it
makes package dependencies impossible as well.  This has nothing to do
with the merits of the file format, but how people have used it.)

						- Ted




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list