On 07-Aug-2002 Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > > It's been quite a while since I looked > at a fresh LSB-si, but if I recall, we > start out with an uninitialized rpm > database. > > I don't think this is quite right. We > do allow (in fact, require) LSB packages > to have the 'lsb' dependency, and although > we currently have to install things --nodeps, > I believe the correct approach would be to > build some minimal package that provides > 'lsb' that is installed into the LSB-si > right off the bat, since I think by implication > whatever the packaging system has to be > set up to accept that as a dependency, > and if our packages weren't otherwise > broken, they'd fail on the lack of this. > > Am I thinking this wrong, or does this > make sense? >
no that is what Stuart and I were yapping about without being explicit. Sorry. I need to read up on .specs and make a LSB package for LSB compliant packages to depend on. This package needs to be installed in the package database and the database needs to be properly initialized. I am thinking this package will also provide the lsb_release program (and what ever other small pieces are needed).
