On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote: > This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, and Bruce did ask for input on topics to bring up. (and I don't mean this in the whiny, argumentative way it looks, I'm just not sure how else to say it.)
> 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. > Package it however they happen to package it now. Just be sure the dependencies are documented. Beyond that, it should be the responsibility of the distro to package these dependencies and install them according to FHS rules. > 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. > As in PackageKit? Not necessarily PackageKit itself, but the idea of it. This would not be so bad at all. And now I see your reply to my previous mail. I can understand why vendors would want a more comprehensive specification, but I still don't see what would be wrong with just documenting the dependencies of the binary package. Assuming the distro follows the FHS, they should install into standard locations when the user installs them as a dependency for the binary package. Perhaps there is something of a user element too. Maybe the LSB requires the extra software, which could be considered cruft, to protect users too dumb and/or lazy to read documentation to get dependency information, and to protect vendors from spurious support requests from said users. If that's at least part of the reasoning, I think I might be beginning to understand. -- Robert Daniels -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
