Ricardo Campos ricardo@corez23.com wrote:
I guess that the LSB is a good idea (in theory), since Linux has gone the way UNIX did by diversifying (perhaps too much)... Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Yes. Probably the problem has to be solved by embracing our similarities instead of trying to hide the difference. If I knew how best to do that, I'd probably be rich by now ;-)
It seems, also, that compliance means that RPM needs to be used?
I think this is bogus: RPMs need to be installable, and SysV scripts too, but they can be done through compatibility layers (in the style of Alien?) rather than by using RPM as the system packaging format.
However, I do have reservations about LSB picking the vendor-tied RPM format. The format has had multiple incompatible versions which have been unleashed on an unsuspecting world (because to announce the imcompatibilities too loudly would hurt sales, I guess) and caused pain as the world made the transition. I think it would have been better to pick a non-vendor-tied binary package format without the distribution-specific dependency handling, such as Encap, perhaps.
Any thoughts oh wise ones? ;)
Brain dump above. Disagree at will.