alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Mon Oct 23 07:14:18 PDT 2006
Ar Llu, 2006-10-23 am 09:01 -0400, ysgrifennodd Theodore Tso:
> Secondly, the last time we talked to ISV's, a significant number of
> them were **not** interested in a new package manager. The problem is
Their objective is to make maximal profit locally. Its an optimisation
problem where their sole interest is the local maximum not the global
one and it is a dangerous path for the LSB to blindly assume they are
> So for those folks, what they need is an interface to the *existing*
> package management system to inform the package management system that
Package management systems don't work like that. Especially at the point
you've got to deal with multi-lib, SELinux and verification toolsets.
> package _foo_ has been installed, and that if package _foo_ needs to
> be uninstalled, to please run the deinstaller at a particular
> pathname, which will return either an exit status of 0 if the
> deinstallation was successful (and so the package name can be removed
> from the package namespace), or 1 (if the package deinstallation was
> cancelled or failed).
For the case where it is properly packaged the "uninstall script" side
of things is supported by the RPM script handling.
> to get all of the distributions to adopt it, they are welcome to try.
> But it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to bet the success of the
> LSB on such an effort....
More information about the lsb-discuss