sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:12 -0700
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:48:41AM -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> As long as our components are LSB compliant and we are FHS compliant in
> installing those components, it should be fairly simple to be LSB
> compliant ourselves. They might need different core library versions
> than we have installed, but I'm sure we could have different spells for
> older libraries setup dependent upon an 'LSB-compliance' metaspell, or
> do they use sysvinit by standard? In which case, we may want to see if
> we can accomodate sysvinit through some hack. Does anybody know what's
> actually mandated by the standard?
The last LSB i looked at had a single, and rather poorly written clause
about package management. It seemed to allude to the fact that you had
to use rpm although it was written ambiguously enough that you /could/
interprit it to mean that package managers with equivalent functionality
(sorcery) were acceptable as well. I haven't read the new one so I dont
know if they've addressed that or not.
-Andrew
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | |
|Sorcery Team Lead, Porting Team Lead | |
|Grimoire Guru ham/smgl | ftp://t.armory.com |
|Author and Maintainer of Prometheus | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpFU9cy1Dwhb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
evraire, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Seth Alan Woolley, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Andrew, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Unet, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Andrew, 09/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0, Seth Alan Woolley, 09/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Andrew, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Unet, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Andrew, 09/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Linux Standard Base v2.0,
Seth Alan Woolley, 09/14/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.