[lsb-discuss] Who maintains RPM?
ddavis at novell.com
Fri Aug 25 08:08:43 PDT 2006
Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Iau, 2006-08-24 am 13:28 -0600, ysgrifennodd Darren Davis:
>> I found this posted on another mail list, but thought it would be very
>> relevant here.
> I think its irrelevant but let me explain why.
> The LSB doesn't say "use rpm". Early on the LSB took a decision not to
> blindly specify "xyz version of this library" but to do the job the hard
> and right way, to specify interfaces and behaviour. It cost time, and
> indeed one major player quit because of it, but it got us what we needed
> and provided the basis to go to ISO even.
> The LSB thus cares about a file format. RPM (or RPMs as there are
> several now) plus alien and other tools deal in the file format. It is
> quite possible for someone to write a new replacement that was so cool
> it blew rpm away and buried it but still supported the LSB defined file
> >From an LSB perspective all that is going on is some discussion about
> the state of a specific implementation of the standard some people
> happen to use. It may fork, and in fact the LSB has made that situation
> much more workable if it does.
Excellent, this is good to know.
More information about the lsb-discuss