On 03/31/2014 09:04 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
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.
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
looks like it is you; see [3] for a formal statement on
reading terms used in a similar standard ... Neither of the
links posted earlier by you mandate the RPM package format,
although they suggest it as a sound choice
Yeah it's me but it's interesting to see it use the same strategy as is
being done within Fedora where all the Red Hat maintained products are
elevated over community maintained ones by various "recommendations" for
them here and there but you are not forced to use those recommendations
no more then you are mandated to use the rpm package format in the lsb
standard.
JBG
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
