Re: LSB Package API

["Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta gmail com>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Alexander Boström <abo kth se> wrote:
> Then how about this use case:
>
>  To simplify the uninstallation of installed proprietary packages.

I think you missed my point entirely about not standing up proprietary
packages as the primary reason.  Hopefully the original poster got my
point.

> I guess a way to do that would be to add support for uninstalling
> autopackage packages using the PackageKit interfaces.


I'm still waiting for someone to give me a comparison between the
LSB/Berlin API concept and what autopackage currently does.   Is there
really a need for the LSB/Berlin API? Does it really do more than what
the autopackage roadmap encompasses?   Just from a motivations point
of view, it seems to me that autopackage is meant to solve exactly the
same problem as the LSB/Berlin API.  And if that is the case, and its
only implementation details that are different, then I think its
probably appropriate for the LSB/Berlin API supporters to do a
compare/constrast against the more mature autopackage concept so we
can get a better understanding of the detailed differences.  Sadly,
such a comparison would need to use very small words, if I am to be
part of the target audience.

-jef"My comments should not be construed as support for autopackage."spaleta