On Tue, Dec 18, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 08:00:57AM +0100, Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:39:10AM +0000, M. Drew Streib wrote: > > > > Anyway, I've got lsb-apache rpms and srpms at: > > > > ftp://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/app-battery/apache/ > > > mv lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.rpm lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.lsb # ? > > Bad idea. lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.lsb will break a lot of software > > for maintaining RPM packages. > > Does that really matter? These are LSB packages that just happen to share > the RPM format, aren't they?
Yes, and I think a user should be able to install them with the default tools of the distribution. Why making things more complicated than necessary? > Making it possible for users to tell at a glance whether they've > got a real LSB package, or something specific to one of the the RPM > distributions seems to me a much more useful feature than working with > every J. Random RPM tool out there. Wasn't there a proposal to code the lsb into the version number or package name? I think this is much more usefull, the user sees, it is a lsb package, and can install it with the tools he like. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE GmbH Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
