[lsb-discuss] There is no good package management for LSB packages
jdluhos at suse.cz
Fri Feb 8 08:19:14 PST 2008
On Friday 08 February 2008, Till Kamppeter spoke thusly:
> The LSB provides a way to supply software in distribution-independent
> packages so that one can simply support Linux with a software.
> During the implementation of distribution-independent printer/scanner
> driver packages automatically downloadable from the OpenPrinting web
> site we have discovered that some important features are missing:
> - Handling of electronic signatures to assure that the packages are
> really the original ones
> - Handling of automatic updates, especially to fix security problems,
> doing automated updates every 24 hours
> The distributions provide these features by their package managers, like
> YaST, yum, urpmi, apt-get, ... Unfortunately, every distro has its own
> tool here. We will need some mechanism to do this in a
> distribution-independent way, for LSB packages.
> Perhaps this is also a reason why the LSB did not get very well adopted
> Any ideas?
Yes, this is probably the most painful problem of the LSB. There are multiple
technical solutions; the most straightforward would be to simply pick a
package manager and say it's the one to be supported (like we have already
stated that a LSB-compliant distro must support a command with rpm-style
However, the core of the problem is political - no distro will willingfully
give up their own package manager, and building one package manager on the
top of another one is a real pain (I know this solution was also proposed but
it sounds like a really horrible hack to me).
It is a real problem and unfortunately, there is no solution in my sight. :-(
Jiri Dluhos, LSB development jdluhos at suse.cz
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. http://www.suse.cz
Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 969
190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951
More information about the lsb-discuss