On Tuesday 14 May 2002 11:54 am, David A. Bandel wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2002 09:45:13 -0700 > begin Aaron Grewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > > [snip] > > > Have any of you produced RPMS based on LSB (http://www.linuxbase.org)? > > It seems to me that if it was practical, we might get the most mileage > > out of a distro focused on compliance to the current standard. That way > > any RPMS produced would run on any LSB-compliant distro. Since I've > > never produced an RPM based on the standard I'm not sure how complicated > > it would be, so I'm interested in whether or not this could reasonably > > be done. It would make it easy (or easier, anyway) to move between > > "base" distros if we found that the one initially chosen was less than > > adequate._______________________________________________ > > I see several problems here, most stemming from glibc, the kernel, and > other library versions. > > Ciao, > > David A. Bandel
I think I understand what you're saying, in that the versions specified by LSB are not anywhere near current. If I understand correctly how most distros handle this there's a set of LSB libs separate from the main system libraries. If our supporting RPMS were all LSB-compliant (where possible, sometimes we could not do this for technical reasons) then in theory we would have a very portable set of RPMS that should run anywhere there was a matching LSB environment. That doesn't make a distro, but I think it would be a better place to start than customizing tightly around an existing distro. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
