[packaging] Comment #20: re LSB 4.0 Core beta specification

[Jeff Johnson]

The LSB packaging standard needs to attempt a semantic model for
the interpretation of packaging format and content.

The original issues (iirc) blocking a specification
of the semantic interpretation model had to do with
erase-before-install versus install-before-erase.

That issue is not very hard to address in a specification.

Already the install and erase (but not the upgrade)
model for dpkg and rpm are largely identical (at least
formally) identical. Details will matter, likely
hooking and extensibility and configuration and ..
the details __ALWAYS__ matter.

But its obvious from symmetry principles that
there are not a large number of "upgrade"
models that need to be specified.

Without a semantic interpretation model, a specification
for, say, "Table 22-14. Package Dependency Attributes"
is largely irreleavent. Sure there are bits, and sometimes
they are on (or pff). But the meaning of the bits can
only be specified wrto a semantic interpretation model.

I also suggest looking quite carefully at Mancoosi (nee EDOS)
package models. They have quite easily succeeded avoided
"packaging wars" with a model that accomodates two formats
with multiple depsolvers, unlike LSB.

hth

73 de Jeff


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4664 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081228/1effd439/attachment.bin