[lsb-discuss] Linux Application Checker impressions
dank at kegel.com
Sat Aug 9 06:58:29 PDT 2008
Wichmann, Mats D <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
>> 2) it was delivered as a tarball rather than an LSB package.
>> While there's nothing wrong with tarballs, this
>> seems like an area where eating your own dogfood
>> might be appropriate.
> It was discussed; while I generally agree with you this
> was a case where (for now) it was considered it could
> provide a barrier to entry for people who don't otherwise
> have an LSB-conforming distro to use for their testing.
Uh, hang on just a sec. You're providing binary tarballs,
so you're already depending on LSB conformance.
The only part you aren't depending on is the ability
of the distro to handle .rpm packages.
I suppose you have a point. Ubuntu Hardy, for instance,
doesn't come with alien preinstalled.
And even if you do install it, doubleclicking on a .lsb
package just brings up the archive manager instead
of installing it. Shucks, we ought to be able to fix
that for Intrepid. Is anybody working on that?
That would take care of most of the people you were
probably worrying about...
>> 3) One of these days it would be sweet if the Linux Foundation
>> had its own yum and apt repositories.
> We do
Sweet. I look forward to a top-level link to the wiki page :-)
More information about the lsb-discuss