What happened to pup?
Jeff Johnson
n3npq at nc.rr.com
Mon May 23 12:46:44 UTC 2005
On May 23, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:24:04AM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
>>> And the LSB specification for compliant *.rpm packages is useless
>>> both
>>> theoretically and practically.
>>>
>>
>> Will this be fixed in future versions of LSB?
>>
>
> I don't believe the LSB currently agrees with Jeff on the state of
> play.
>
Yep. LSB prohibits all dependencies save one in *.rpm packages
and does not have a testable and objective meaning for
Requires: lsb
except
Whatever LSB says or will say in the future.
OTOH, the benefit of that is that *.tar and *.rpm become functionally
equivalent
when LSB compliant. In fact, that was one of the stated goals of the
LSB packaging standard.
73 de Jeff
More information about the devel
mailing list