[lsb-discuss] Why was RPM chosen as part of LSB? (was Re: Why python was chosen as a part of LSB?)

Jeffrey Johnson n3npq at me.com
Fri Jun 13 16:09:22 UTC 2014

On Jun 13, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> If you want to try to suggest a better solution that meets all of the
> requirements, and which acknowledges the fact that the dominate
> distributions out there _do_ use RPM (and trust me, LSB had very
> little to do with that --- LSB isn't that important), feel free to
> suggest and implement something better.

I am not only suggesting but also sending patches to LSB. True for
the last 4.x RFC cycle as well, where I sent multiple comments on
the package spec that were mostly ignored.

There never was a RFC for LSB 5.0: its was decided a priori to
not attempt an uplift.

And I will never "trust" you after your public comments about RPM
(and me).

73 de Jeff

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list