| 1 |
On Thursday 05 May 2005 01:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> For us to support LSB: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> * We'd have to use RPM instead of portage |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That's not correct, quote from LSB: |
| 7 |
"The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own |
| 8 |
packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the |
| 9 |
LSB-conformant packages." |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So basically we can continue to do rpm2targz like we do now and still be |
| 12 |
LSB-compliant. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> * We'd have to support all the daft FHS ideas like /media, /srv and |
| 15 |
> /wedonotunderstandtheunixfs |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Like you said before: |
| 18 |
"Thing is, it really isn't a problem. Data files go in $(datadir), |
| 19 |
configuration files go in $(sysconfdir) and so on, and the build system |
| 20 |
handles the rest. It doesn't matter what $(datadir) is actually defined |
| 21 |
to be (unless your code really really sucks)." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
With a proper build system you can install the same package in the current |
| 24 |
Gentoo FHS or the LSB FHS. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> * We'd have to make X support mandatory |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Only in the LSB-profile, the normal profile doesn't need to have X-libs |
| 29 |
installed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> * We'd have to ship ancient versions of core libraries |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
There is some interest in that already, see GLEP19 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> In fact, basically, we'd have to become RedHat. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I don't agree. I think the Gentoo-framework is flexible enough to give us an |
| 38 |
_optional_ LSB-compliant system (e.g. by selecting a profile) without making |
| 39 |
any consessions on the current Gentoo-structure. |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives