Re: LSB Status

2002-01-07 Thread Grant Bowman
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]: Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about *.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed. Really? I guess that could be. On what basis do you make this distinction? -- -- Grant Bowman

Re: LSB Status

2002-01-07 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]: Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about *.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed. Really? I guess that could be. On what basis do

Re: LSB Status

2002-01-07 Thread Grant Bowman
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020107 12:39]: Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]: Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about *.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed. Really? I

Re: LSB Status

2002-01-07 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020107 12:39]: Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]: Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about *.deb

Re: LSB Status

2002-01-07 Thread Grant Bowman
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020107 14:23]: Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020107 12:39]: Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]: Yes, but the spec is talking about