On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the LSB: > Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a > functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ] > to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If extras are going to > be included, then call it a Linux DISTRO Standard, not a Base Standard. > [ I for one ignore the LSB because it is not what it claims to be, a > BASE for Linux.] LFS and DIY are much closer to being a base in the lack > of extra software.
This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire purpose of the LSB is to allow third parties to create software packages for "standard" Linux systems. Where LFS and DIY stop are far too minimal for this purpose. For example, how would it be possible for Google to package Picasa for Linux if all that was guaranteed was what comes in LFS? If you aren't concerned with allowing 3rd party packages, then there is no reason to pursue the LSB at all. As for the use of RPM, you can see more recent articles and discussions on the LSB lists on the topic of package management. It is an extremely difficult topic to pursue given the myriad of packagers on the various distros. I believe that the current approach is to try to create a generic shim layer with backends for the specific package managers including RPM, dpkg, etc. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
