[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 22:13:00 UTC 2014

On 03/31/2014 09:04 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> 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.
>> 1.
>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html
>> 2. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Book/Packaging
> looks like it is you; see [3] for a formal statement on
> reading terms used in a similar standard ... Neither of the
> links posted earlier by you mandate the RPM package format,
> although they suggest it as a sound choice

Yeah it's me but it's interesting to see it use the same strategy as is 
being done within Fedora where all the Red Hat maintained products are 
elevated over community maintained ones by various "recommendations" for 
them here and there but you are not forced to use those recommendations 
no more then you are mandated to use the rpm package format in the lsb 


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list