On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:01:45AM -0500, Jim Knoble wrote: > Circa 2002-Mar-03 23:42:15 -0700 dixit Jason Gunthorpe: > > : On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Jim Knoble wrote: > : > My point was that 'lsb-blah-ththth.lsb' is rather redundant. Either > : > call packages 'lsb-blah-ththth.rpm' or 'blah-ththth.lsb'. Both is too > : > much. > : > : Well, the leading lsb- is because that is the name of the package, the > : trailing .lsb is because that is the file format. > > Don't be pedantic. The leading 'lsb-' is because someone thought it > would be a good idea to put 'lsb-' in front of every LSB-compliant > package. It's not. It's too long, and it's got too many lsb's, and > it's too easy to confuse 'lsb-' with the supplier of the package (as in > lsb-testsuite-N.NN-R.i386.lsb) or with part of the name of the package > (as in lsb-1.1-1.i386.lsb).
lsb-testsuite would be an incorrect name for an lsb package. It would be something like lsb-freestandards.org-lsb-testsuite-1.1.i386.lsb Jim, not only is it a 'good idea' to put 'lsb-' in front of LSB packages, we *MUST* have a namespace to avoid collisions of package space. Cheers, Matt
