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 fedora-devel-list
mailing list