On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Erik Slagter wrote: > > Of course one may think that providing the tools lessens the pressure > > toward a better solution, but not providing tools just for this reason > > is like taking hostages to force an ideal solution. I do not think the > > distributions will grow any more incompatible just because the tools to > > cope with the incompatibilities exist. I believe distribution makers > > already look over eachother's shoulders to see what the others are > > doing, and adjust toward a consensus in very many cases. We just don't > > live in a perfect world. > > IMHO checking for a certain distribution is always a bad idea, a bad > substitute for checking for the real criterium (files being present > etc.) That's the theory. But in practice it's very different. We're not opting to have 1 SPEC file for each project on each distribution. This is insane and very resource-intensive. So what you need is some way to have 1 SPEC file that works over different distributions. And for that you need to differentiate depending on the distribution. What LSB wants is one package that runs everywhere (and is binary compatible). How are you going to achieve binary compatibility on EL2.1 and EL3 ??? It will never happen. Even when you set dependencies one files (which RPM mosly does) each distribution will provide their own library that is different. So please don't tell me you know it better, because we looked at all the options and theory is not practice. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
