On 10/21/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The FHS and the GNU-standards are fairly widely accepted standards in > the OSS, Linux and GNU world. The context was... packaging standards.... which i'm pretty sure isn't covered in the venerable standards you mention. >As others already mentioned, the LSB's > importance is arguable/questionable - Fact is, its importance so far has > been almost negligible. I'm not going to argue its worth, but it is the only attempt at a standard that I am aware of that actually covers packaging.. across distributions... in a way that is relevant to Hearn's comments about Fedora packaging. The fact that the only standards specification that I can find..easily...has questionable worth..only further supports my point that there isn't a workable standard in the package space with wide acceptance, so it's pointless and most likely counter-productive for Hearn to imply that there is such a standard out there to measure Fedora packaging against when trying to compel discussion about changing aspects of Fedora to make cross-distribution packaging easier to do. -jef"more importantly it looks like hot liquid lithium limited Ohmicly heated low aspect ratio tokamak plasma discharges reach an energy confinement time nearly 3 times larger than previous emperical scaling laws would predict... its miller time"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
