Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
I don't believe that the LSB should specify which packages should be installed. That's way too inflexible. It should just do what distributions do: specify dependencies for each package. This is why it's important to settle the package format debate.
Actually, what you're proposing isn't any better. I'll get to that in a moment...

So, basically what happens is this: the LSB specifies the package versions that Linux distributions have to offer in 2011. Then, Debian Unstable will create the biggest repository in existence, and all distributions will derive from that (but that's not required). Fedora will have more bleeding edge stuff added to it, and all is good.

Then comes along Maya 2012, which is an LSB-2011 compliant package. It will work just like a normal distribution package, except that it won't depend on the bleeding edge stuff from Fedora for example. It will still just install everything it needs, and all dependencies will be there.
Actually no, it won't. You didn't catch the thing I was telling everyone when I posted earlier on the subject.

libpng12. It's on the current crop of distributions, but NOT on Arch and a few other of the latest. They've went to libpng14. You don't want the old stuff lurking around for a LONG time, so they removed it on some of the distributions and deprecated it (i.e. compat package...). Caster 1.1 (which is what you'd get when you buy right at the moment...) will install and NOT work on the latest Arch and a few others without you compiling or installing an unsupported "compat" package. In the LSB story you're saying, you'd have to have a RAFTLOAD of stuff lying about just to support this and that. When 2.0 ships, I'll be forcing SDL_image to not dlopen the png and jpeg libs and load them like any other .so by normal linkage- and then forcing it to use libpng14 in my ./libs dir to avoid this problem. LSB wouldn't FIX this. Your idea of LSB might fix it with a lot of other issues (i.e. some of the stuff won't live nicely together on the same system...). RPM doesn't fix this. Directory structures doesn't fix this. Specifying a library doesn't fix this unless we have a lot more consistent versioning in about 1/3 or so of the libraries in the Linux system space.

LSB is a solution by someone who didn't grok what the problem really was- it's a partial solution and a clumsy one at that.