-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
anyone else w/ opinions?
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: [COLUG] LSB 1.0 -- Laboring mightly to yield ... a mouse
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: COLUG list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There was mention of the .DEB and .RPM packaging tool formats at
the meeting last week. The LSB has just issued its Spec. 1.00
for comment, and come up with a solution that will be acceptable
to NEITHER the Debian folks, NOR the Red Hat-ites.
See: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html
Which proposes to use a 3 year old variant of the RPM --
ABSENT some of its features --
Even MORE curiously, "Packages may not depend on the order in
which scripts are executed (pre-install, pre-uninstall, &c),
when doing an upgrade."
... that is -- intelligent dependency walkthroughs appear to be
prohibited. Apt is largely there in -stable; and current RPM
has been moving this way, having it working in 'up2date' with
an XML backend for 8 months.
- ----------------------------
No mention at all of .DEB <---> .RPM conversion by 'alien', nor
template of permitted transforms to psermit use of the standard
as a reference for .DEB users. Reviewing the last two month's
meeting attendees, no Debian representative was evident.
http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/mindex.html
- -----------------------------
In a seeming slap at Red Hat, rather than referencing the stable
(and referrence) www.rpm.org site for the online text of the
Maximum RPM text (which is incorporated in part by reference),
they choose a secondaary source 'fan site' without redundancy.
- -----------------------------
To offend the Slackware folk, it appears to require SysV
initscripts:
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/initsrcinstrm.html
- ------------------------------
Humorously, the first mentioned secondary source is BSD Lite:
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/rimplementations.html
- ------------------------------
I am underwhelmed and disappointed ... Extension and Growth path
for changing times -- particularly with the glibc / gcc of late
- -- seems not to have been considered.
- -----------------------------
By choosing to release a document not relevant to current
Linux development and practice, the LSB may have succeeded in
answering the question "Who needs the LSB standard?" with: "Not
the Linux communities."
- -- Phil Hunter
_______________________________________________
colug mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug
- -------------------------------------------------------
- --
Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778
Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/ Admin: http://linux.nf/
Brainbench Linux Administration Certified
~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~
/*
* For moronic filesystems that do not allow holes in file.
* We may have to extend the file.
*/
2.4.0-test2 /usr/src/linux/fs/buffer.c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjtBPbAACgkQOPP+k4ZeTm2hoACgjk+YiqckgS/B62PKgpa7FgND
MzUAoKoZu/Kr3cLVPtjaI8a7b8EgMaI3
=Zqvp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
