[lsb-discuss] FW: openSUSE RPM switches to LZMA payload
n3npq at mac.com
Mon Apr 21 09:45:22 PDT 2008
On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> This is why it would be lovely (and at the moment a
> far off dream) to see JBJ's proposed "LSB mode"
> to rpmbuild become a widely distributed reality.
rpm-5.0.2 (iirc) has rpmbuild --lsb configuration simplification
I will generate the same patch against current rpm-18.104.22.168 with
If rpm.org uses any varinat of the patch, they will give full
I'm sure the reasons for the stipulation are quite clear.
Better could be done if "LSB format" discussions can
be moved from LSB <-> RPM "branding" to a rpm2lsb
"Aliens II" conversion tool. The tools needs to be done for many
By "better" I mean insturmenting rpmbuild to actually run
LSB certification tests, whatever that means. I also suggest a rpmlint
based approach for easier compliance testing. rpmlint
has a far larger devel base if you are prepared to insturment
a different configuration to rpmlint than the "default".
There are existing LSB tool issues as well. I pointed out 2 flaws in
and likely can identify many others if I really dug in.
If you want, I'll suck all the LSB tools into rpm5.org CVS and
run them through splint annotations, a modernization cycle,
adding additional tests, and hand them back to LSB.
All that's awkward is the dogged "LSB format" insistence and LSB <-> RPM
"branding" issues. Hacking rpm based code is trivial by comparison.
Whether you want the tools back after I've add splint annotations, etc
is absolutely of no consequence to me. All I want to see is progress,
not endless uninformed discussion, as has been going on.
And I want the LSB <-> RPM "branding" issues to get out of the way of
73 de Jeff
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
More information about the lsb-discuss