On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:29:38AM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote: > > Does naming packages .lsb make that transition any easier/harder? > The LSB spec specifies that packages we are to use the "lsb-" prefix. We are > not to create/use a ".lsb" suffix. The RPM file format that we are using > should > be readable by both rpm(1) and alien(1). There is no need to introduce a new > ".lsb" file type.
".lsb" is a filename extension, not a file type. It's a marketing tool both for non-RPM distributions, and for the LSB itself. Joey and Erik have already described the need for the new filetype, and worked out a way of doing it in an appropriately compatible way. > http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/pkgnameconv.html Pointing at a spec that was rushed and hence doesn't fit the problem space isn't really helpful. As distribution vendors, do we really have to flame you guys for seven months to get every little change accepted? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/ ``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
pgpvGCv77uoxz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
