Previously Dan Kegel wrote: > Presumably, packages that are part of all minimal conforming distributions > should be named the same. LSB should specify those package names. > The initial set of names should be as close to current practice as possible. > > This sounds like a small, reasonable task. Is it?
No :) The best we can do (at least in the near future) is define a set of packages that declare a form of LSB conformancy. So a package like "fsg-fhs" will mean that if it is installed the system has everything that the fhs states. Versioned dependencies can be used of course. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ / Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
