Re: [Packaging] Re: archive format

> As it stands, non-rpm distributions are going to continue to make
> a half-hearted effort at supporting the lsb, and rpm distributions are
> going to continue to see the lsb-rpm as validation to their choise of
> using rpm as a packaging format.

The LSB does not specify what the "distribution" uses for packaging.
The LSB only specifies that the distribution is able to install RPM
packages LSB software applications.

> Im a Free Software person myself, when i want compatability i use
> autoconf, and send the source code, that voids the need for this
> lsb stuff.

There is a huge difference between source code compatibility and binary
compatibility.  The developer/supplier needs to choose which he/she
wants.

> The lsb is currently only aimed at open source people, oepn source
> people are more tolerant of binary only stuff, and hence need the lsb
> magic to replace autoconf.

The LSB is aimed at both open source and commercial software; hence, the
LSB's ISV survey...

George (gk4)