På 1999-Sep-26 klokka 20:18:07 -0400 skrivet Raul Miller: : Almost all of which can be addressed through simple specifications.
But they are *already* addressed by RPM. Why reinvent them? : formats... : ^ The RPM *package format* hasn't changed significantly since rpm-2.4.x back in 1997. The *specfile format* has changed somewhat, as have the API to the RPM library and the user interface to the rpm command. : The various incompatible rpm programs do indeed deal with such things : for the appropriate .rpm files. But that's not some kind of sacred : magic which is only associated with the letters rpm. Obviously, the LSB should specify a particular version of the package format, and quite likely of the rpm command (if it is included). This is no different than specifying a kernel version, C library version, etc. Alternatatively, the LSB can specify an interface which happens to correspond to a particular version of rpm. This is no different from specifying an interface which corresponds to a particular version of a kernel or C library. Get over it, already. : Trivial example of how to do something analogous using tgz format: [...] It is not the purpose of LSB to foster not-invented-here syndromes. As has been mentioned several times, not only does RPM already exist, but it's also already widely used. The only tarball `package' format that i'm aware of that's at all widely used is in Slackware Linux, which, last i looked, was somewhat limited and not really widely used. --jim %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% jim knoble %%%%%%%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
