On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
I highly doubt the Linux Foundation is going to go back on the Linux Standards
Base and use .debs, but I do like your optimism. :)
Not that the LSB only specified the RPM package format. This was done because
most distributions had a way of handling RPM packages (Debian uses alien).
The LSB does NOT mandate that the distro itself has to use RPM, only that it
be capable of correclty installing an application packaged with RPM. Debian
is LSB compliant, so any other .deb based distro should be capable of doing
the same.
Wanting to be LSB conforming does not imply that a distro must be RPM based.
Of course you are right. But be honest, do you really think these two companies
are going to expend effort on supporting an apt based package manager? Do you
think they are going to document using apt with rpms? Do you think they will
advise new users and their own internal developers to use debs instead of rpm?
Absolutely not. This is clearly a case of these 3 entities serving their own
interests over those of the community. I just wanted to point out that any
reasoning based on "because the LSB says so" was invalid.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson [email protected]
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
