extension of lsb packages
srivasta at acm.org
Tue Mar 5 20:01:41 PST 2002
>>"George" == George Kraft IV <gk4 at austin.ibm.com> writes:
George> Let me try to answer the last set of questions.
George> 1) the name space issue is with respect to package names (not
George> RPM v3 file names); therefore, the need to get LANANA
George> online is important.
You want LANANA to determine package names for Linux packages?
George> 2) changing the rpm file format to determine if it is an LSB
George> package is a design issue. I *restarted* the lsb
George> packaging taskforce a year ago. That team was to outline
George> what could be used among the lsb distributions today
George> (least common denominator), and they were to produce a
George> comprehensive design for *everyone* to migrate to for
George> future packaging.
And you really expect a task force to come up with a
``comprehensive design'' of a packaging solution every one will
migrate to? In this Millennium?
George> ; however, I want to avoid enhancements like ".lsb"
George> without a comprehensive design. There needs to be a full
George> design, proposal, and acceptance (in the community and lsb)
George> before doing anything like ".lsb".
This is the most ossified project I have ever seen, and I have
been involved in a number of US government projects in my time.
George> I hope this helps clarify the "*lsb*" naming issues.
I think it does. This is the clearest indication I have seen
that the LSB is essentially dead, bogged down in bureaucratic morass,
and not to be considered seriously until something changes. Too bad,
we really needed something like the LSB.
[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with
nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. Wernher von Braun
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta at acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
More information about the lsb-discuss