[packaging] Wiki or summary page, anywhere?

[Peter Dolding]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 25, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Come to think of it, we can simply remove the dependency
>>>> on /bin/sh, it's implied by LSB.  Thanks for pointing that out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good luck removing the Requires: /bin/sh, its not easy
>>> without changing rpmbuild
>>>
>>
>> Then I won't worry about it for now, it can't hurt anything.
>>
>
> Whether
>        Requires: /bin/sh
> is present (or not) and whether the dependency is permitted (or not)
> has never been important.
>
> The important issue for a packaging "standard" is whether
> the package can be installed everywhere in Linux. Go read
> Ian's blog if you need to reinforce the memories. But
> as an ISV who wishes some "standard" assistance preparing
> software packages that can be installed on Linux reliably, I doubt
> that I need to remind you of your needs.
>
> It is a damn shame that the LSB packaging standard cannot
> deliver on its intended promise. Not all the blame needs to
> be assigned to LSB either, there's more than enough blame to
> go around.
>
> By all means, blame me, if that floats your boat. My public persona
> will go *shrug*.
>
> 73 de Jeff
>

No need to blame you.   At least you like me still remember the intended
goal of LSB packaging.

Lot of the intended goal was lost in the rpm mess.

Matching up to runtimes provided by LSB so your package passes LSB
certification really has nothing to do with the reason the LSB packaging
list was formed Dan.

Also people point to LSB 4.0 and say progress.  Yes apparently people like
Dan did not read it.   What is best effort dynamic linker about.   Simply
about allowing LSB applications to still operate as close to expected on non
LSB certified distributions and even non tested distributions by ISV's.

Packaging game has changed.   Some solution to runtimes is needed to make
best effort dynamic linker work its best.

Goals of work everywhere for LSB are still going forwards.  LSB 4.0 granted
maybe run everywhere. Goal for LSB 4.1 was hopefully install everywhere.
Yes I do mean everywhere non LSB distributions included.   Berlin of course
leaves the mess of installing the LSB runtime in the ISV's hands.

Time to return to goals and workout how you are going to make them work.

Now why waste man hours changing an applications dependancies if you can
build a framework that works.   Not all ISV's are going to waste there man
hours instead look for the different solutions that don't require it.

Can you not see why I have been annoyed.  Trust of distributions to get to
targeted goal for 4.1 is not possiable.

Peter Dolding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081226/22d5e303/attachment.htm