>> Once you start >> looking at packages that claim to be distribution-agnostic >> things break down unless there are some external rules. > >In general, those packages don't work well. They end up not >being pretty on any distribution (except maybe the one they're >really made on and for despite the intention). There's a whole world out there that wishes this wasn't so, and FHS and LSB aim to help with that, but of course nobody is forced to follow those, nor are they a complete solution (at least, not yet). The alternative unfortunately is that people start packaging with other systems which make the problem worse, because now there's stuff that ends up installed on the system but is *not* managed by the package manager. That really sucks in a lot of ways including ones we might not instantly think of (like IT deparments claiming they can't do compliance/license checks on systems in their enterprise). However, this is wandering off topic, and I'll climb down off my particular soapbox, having answered the question of what certain specs suggest. Followups on whether that makes any sense can go to lsb-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, discussion on packaging topics that relate to LSB/FHS are always welcome there - still trying to work out what answers actually make sense. -- mats _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
