[Klug-general] If RPM based distros wanted to change...

[Karl Lattimer]

> Yes, this is true, apart from a couple of poorly created packages, where
> the developer sets the dependancy to libmyfavouritecodebits version
> 1.0.5.compiledUnderANewMoon.on.a.tuesday.duringAParty. And only that
> version, not, say, libmyfavouritecodebits version 1.0.5 or greater.
> 
> This caused problems when upgradeing things and you get package a
> wanting the above compiledUnderANewMoon version, and one wants the
> CompileInDayLight version, and it wont let you ahve both, but you know
> full well that the daylight version supports everything in the newmoon
> version.
> 
> I am using this as a liducrous example which annoyed me the other night
> at 4 in the morning when mozilla farted in a dist-upgrade. Debian
> package versions are more sensible normally.

Sometimes get things like that on redhat too, I think its universal that
packagers can be dumb as a sack of rocks at times.

> > > What about LSB, is RPM still a requirement for it?
> > 
> > I think the requirement was always _A_ package manager of a selection.
> > rpm/deb I think are both in there I might be wrong though.
> 
> Thats 5 times I have read that as LSD nor LSB.

Something you're not telling us?

"Now class, if you all look under your chairs you'll find a bag of 5
dried grams of psilicibin magic mushrooms, we all take them at the same
time and we can float down to dick joke heaven on testical clouds"
 -- The Hicks ;)

K,