On 03/31/2014 07:01 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Last time I check and from dawn of time the LSB standard required
application to be packaged in RPM format which immediately excludes
distributions that do not use RPM as their default/preferred package manager
No. Right from the start great care was taken to document it as a file
format. Nothing in the LSB cares about what packaging format (if any) is
native to the distribution.
It's pefectly compliant to bung it through alien
Yeah maybe my English is not good enough or I'm not looking at the right
places since it's not clear to me reading through the standard [1] or
the examples [2] that other packing format is endorsed and accepted by
the lsb.
In anycase if things continue to head in the direction they seem to be
heading, distribution packaging, installment, updates and upgrades as we
know it will seized to exist in the next 5 years or so, which hopefully
at that time we ( as in the linux ecosystem ) will be able to put this
mess apt - aptitude - dselect - ubuntu software center - yum - apt-rpm -
poldek - up2date - urpmi - zypp - slapt-get - slackpkg - zendo - netpkg
- swaret - appbrowser - Conary - Equo - pkgutils - pacman - PETget -
PISI - Portage - Smart Package Manager - Steam - Tazpkg - Upkg - dpkg -
synaptic - rpm - zif, dnf - PackageKit, Gnome Software <and gazillion
others I failed to mention there ) to rest and be able to develop to
install, update and upgrade applications or application stacks in the
same manner regardless of which distribution you happen to be using at
that time. ( which solves one problem we are faced with )
JBG
1.
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html
2. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Book/Packaging
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
