Circa 2001-Jul-05 09:48:17 -0400 dixit Theodore Tso:
: On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 09:10:20AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 01:26:33PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
: > > Yes, which is why the hard-coded user/group id isn't that big of a
: > > deal. It only applies for those folks who wish to distribute LSB
: > > application using raw cpio files. If we decide this isn't
: > > particularly important, we can drop the requirements on the uid
: > > ownership for bin.
: >
: > If cpio is the distribution medium, why all the hoopla over rpm? If rpm
: > is the standard, why the concern about cpio?
:
: Cpio isn't *the* distribution medium, but it's a possible distribuion
: medium. ISV's aren't *required* to use RPM format packages. They can
: also supply their own installation program/scripts, so long as those
: installation program/scripts only use interfaces which are guaranteed
: to be available on LSB compliant distributions.
Cpio is also a potential *backup* medium. For goodness' sake, if we're
trying to have some semblance of compatibility, shouldn't an admin be
able to back files using cpio and have them restore properly on another
LSB system?
--
jim knoble | jmknoble@jmknoble.cx | http://www.jmknoble.cx/
| jmknoble@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/
(GnuPG fingerprint: 31C4:8AAC:F24E:A70C:4000::BBF4:289F:EAA8:1381:1491)
Attachment:
pgp9pP5UunoJR.pgp
Description: PGP signature