What happened to pup?

[Jeff Johnson]

On May 23, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:24:04AM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
>>> And the LSB specification for compliant *.rpm packages is useless  
>>> both
>>> theoretically and practically.
>>>
>>
>> Will this be fixed in future versions of LSB?
>>
>
> I don't believe the LSB currently agrees with Jeff on the state of  
> play.
>

Yep. LSB prohibits all dependencies save one in *.rpm packages
and does not have a testable and objective meaning for
      Requires: lsb
except
     Whatever LSB says or will say in the future.

OTOH, the benefit of that is that *.tar and *.rpm become functionally  
equivalent
when LSB compliant. In fact, that was one of the stated goals of the  
LSB packaging standard.

73 de Jeff