[packaging] Comment #22: re LSB 4.0 Core beta specification

[devzero2000]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:
> > I suggest that its time to (finally!) split LSB from RPM cleanly by
> removing
> > every "RPM" identifier throughout the LSB 4.0 Core packaging document.
>
> Except that ISVs don't want another packaging format.
> They want to ship .rpm's (and, possibly using alien, .deb's).
> They just want a way to make sure their .rpm's and .deb's will
> install and run everywhere.


Personally I have not always found still a vendor of commercial products
that distributes always their products as a rpm package. Rather it is the
exception. Besides, also when this happens, they are often of a very bad
quality. For instance:

- one want to make in  rpm something similar to "you accept the license?"
E.g. An interactive install . Yep. So i have done a rpm bundle of this.
- Others install objects in% post, without rpm control.
- some one else instead install "empty rpm" when installing the software via
propriety product: don't ask me way.

Conclusion.

I spend a lot of my time to  packaging of proprietary products, with theirs
thousand problems (no fhs, security ecc.

I think this is the BIG problem.

Regards





>
> They most definitely don't want anything that will prevent
> lsb packages from being handled by normal distro package
> managers.
> - Dan
> _______________________________________________
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081231/bff52a5d/attachment-0001.htm