[lsb-discuss] Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 19:40:46 UTC 2014

On 03/31/2014 07:01 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Last time I check and from dawn of time the LSB standard required
>> application to be packaged in RPM format which immediately excludes
>> distributions that do not use RPM as their default/preferred package manager
> No. Right from the start great care was taken to document it as a file
> format. Nothing in the LSB cares about what packaging format (if any) is
> native to the distribution.
> It's pefectly compliant to bung it through alien

Yeah maybe my English is not good enough or I'm not looking at the right 
places since it's not clear to me reading through the standard [1] or 
the examples [2] that other packing format is endorsed and accepted by 
the lsb.

In anycase if things continue to head in the direction they seem to be 
heading, distribution packaging, installment, updates and upgrades as we 
know it will seized to exist in the next 5 years or so, which hopefully 
at that time we ( as in the linux ecosystem ) will be able to put this 
mess apt - aptitude - dselect - ubuntu software center - yum - apt-rpm - 
poldek - up2date - urpmi - zypp - slapt-get - slackpkg - zendo - netpkg 
- swaret - appbrowser - Conary - Equo - pkgutils - pacman - PETget - 
PISI - Portage - Smart Package Manager - Steam - Tazpkg - Upkg - dpkg - 
synaptic - rpm - zif, dnf - PackageKit, Gnome Software <and gazillion 
others I failed to mention there ) to rest and be able to develop to 
install, update and upgrade applications or application stacks in the 
same manner regardless of which distribution you happen to be using at 
that time. ( which solves one problem we are faced with )


2. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Book/Packaging

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list