[lsb-discuss] Is RPM required for LSB compliance?

Kohei Yoshida kyoshida at slickedit.com
Tue Nov 28 11:49:31 PST 2006

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 10:02 -0800, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:

> rpm package format is currently the *preferred* format, but
> not strictly a requirement.
> the intent of the rule is this:
> to enable delivery of applications onto a conforming system,
> they must be provided in a way the receipient can be sure
> to able to install
> (a) as conforming systems are required to be able to install
> lsb (rpm) format packages, using this format meets the requirement
> (b) using a combination of tools that are required to be
> present on a system, such as tar and/or the shell, meets
> the requirement
> (c) delivering the installer application along with the
> software to be installed, and that installer is itself
> made lsb-conforming, meets the requirement
> Method (a) is the preferred method because the software
> can then be managed by the system's native package manager
> in the way that other software is, easing the burden on
> administrators

Thanks for the clarification.  This helps.

I guess the question for us really is whether we could realistically
move to rpm based delivery during this development cycle (we're pretty
late in the game).  We would like to, eventually, but there are several
dependencies to the installer change that need to be addressed first.

Anyway..., Thanks again.

Kohei Yoshida, Software Engineer        kyoshida at slickedit.com
SlickEdit, Inc.                         http://www.slickedit.com/

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list