Edgy Third Party Package Management
wasabi at larvalstage.net
Fri Jun 2 14:52:40 BST 2006
LSB defines RPM as the standard or something, doesn't it? :)
I think it's an okay sacrifice to make to recognize that Yes, there are
multiple versions of Linux, just like of Windows, and Yes, if you want
the best experience for users on each version, you might have to spend a
little time tailoring your distribution methods. That's simply the way
the world is right now.
LSB also defines nothing to do with distribution method. THe goal of
this is to simplify the experience for the user. One click, "Are you
sure?", done. That is pretty far outside of the LSB, currently anyway.
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 00:20 -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> Jerry Haltom wrote:
> > 4. Existing systems which attempt to bridge all distributions
> > (AutoPackage) suck for one reason or another.
> I don't see why someone like say, mathworks or wolfram, would implement
> a Ubuntu package but not instead just support lsb. They do neither at
> this point, as far as I can remember -- they instead usually either
> statically link everything or compile against 2-3 year old targets for
> libc and include their own copies of libraries or statically link them
> if needed.
> lsb isn't the prettiest way of dealing with it, but most isv's have
> better things to do than mess with support fedora/redhat/ubuntu/suse/etc
> all at once.
More information about the ubuntu-devel