On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Heh. Forbidding bzip2 is prolly not in LSB interest imho.
>
> Do you *really* want to reopen gzip vs. bzip2 discussions
> ad nauseum in a "standards" discussion?
Not at the momment 8-)
> Why not just say
> that the payload can be compressed, implementation specific,
> and that gzip support is required, but bzip2 support is optional, and other
> types of compression can/will be added if/when necessary. That's
> what I would do anyways, your LSB mileage may vary ...
If I can build a package that can't be installed everywhere, then the
standard has failed. We have to be more explicite about stuff like
this. Either support for something is required, or you just can't depend
on it (and shouldn't use it).
(btw, nice to see you last week!)
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
