1 |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:20:10 +0100, Jose Gonzalez Gomez |
2 |
<jgonzalez@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Anyway, is the RPM format mandatory for the whole system, or just |
5 |
> for installing LSB compliant software? |
6 |
|
7 |
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.1/LSB-Core/LSB-Core/swinstall.html |
8 |
|
9 |
"Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as |
10 |
defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB |
11 |
conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities). [1] |
12 |
|
13 |
Distributions shall provide a mechanism for installing applications in |
14 |
this packaging format with some restrictions listed below. [2] |
15 |
|
16 |
"[1] Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes |
17 |
systems easier to manage. A future version of the LSB may require RPM, |
18 |
or specify a way for an installer to update a package database. |
19 |
|
20 |
"Applications are also encouraged to uninstall cleanly. |
21 |
|
22 |
"[2] The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for |
23 |
its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for |
24 |
installing the LSB-conformant packages." |
25 |
|
26 |
My interpretation of this is, Gentoo is LSB-compliant now -- on this |
27 |
point at least -- because different packaging formats are allowed; and |
28 |
the installer (Portage) presumably calls "LSB commands and |
29 |
utilities"; and while RPM is not in the system profile, you can simply |
30 |
run "emerge rpm" to install it; and [2] specificially allows different |
31 |
packaging for the distribution itself. |
32 |
|
33 |
I suspect the rest of the core specification is non-controversial, |
34 |
except perhaps the section on system initialization, and perhaps users |
35 |
and groups, but I haven't read these. |
36 |
-- |
37 |
Computer interfaces should never be made of meat. |
38 |
|
39 |
Using GMail? Setting Reply-to address to <> disables this annoying feature. |