In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Taggart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Joey Hess writes... > >> This seems less than optimal to me. If lsb packages were required to end >> with ".lsb", then there would be no worries about source packages being >> confused with lsb packages, and no worries about alien or another tools >> generating something that looks broadly like a lsb package but was not >> intended to be one, and there would be less special-purpose code in >> alien. > >You have a really good point. Can someone please explain why we currently do >it the way we do? > >Another thing I've been thinking about is transition to a future lsb package >format. Does naming packages .lsb make that transition any easier/harder? > >If this issue is holding up the adoption of lsb on non-rpm systems we need to >address it ASAP. > No it's not holding up adoption on non-rpm as far as I'm aware.
And I'm hoping (with some justification, I believe), that this whole mess is going to get dropped completely with LSB 2. The decision has been made that with LSB 1 we are going to specify a subset of what is currently being used. With LSB 2 we are hopefully going to specify the way it *should* be done. In other words, an api that allows any install tool to talk to any distro package database. So if your employer insists on Red Hat, and you like apt-get etc, you can install apt-get and use it, and your Red Hat Package Database remains fully up-to-date at all times ... :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
