extension of lsb packages
tytso at mit.edu
Mon Mar 4 17:47:51 PST 2002
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 02:10:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/pkgnameconv.html
> Pointing at a spec that was rushed and hence doesn't fit the problem
> space isn't really helpful. As distribution vendors, do we really have
> to flame you guys for seven months to get every little change accepted?
Actually, this part of the spec has been stable for a very long time.
Simply put, there's a problem here --- namely, how do we come up with
a package namespace for third-party vendors that is guaranteed not to
conflict with local package names from Debian... Red
Hat.. SuSe... Caldera... etc., etc., etc.
Hence, the horrible, long name. I identified the problem a long time
ago, and proposed a solution; it's been in the LSB draft for a very
long time. Distribution vendors have never suggested something
better. If you have a better solution, do please suggest it.
More information about the lsb-discuss