Not quite. The LSB is addressing 3rd party software vendors' needs of having a safe assumption on available ABIs and, I think, services.
> Why do you (the user) want to have to manage two different installer packages?
What I meant was that the LSB packages would not be treated like distribution packages, since they are not.
When users install distribution provided software they assume certain quality criteria, e.g. being free of conflicts, files ending up in certain locations without packages overwriting each other, being signed by keys from a certain keyring, etc.
LSB packages are provided by third parties, they are do not run through the same compliance tests as system packages.
Therefore converting them and then treating them like system packages would not be wise.
However, that doesn't mean they can't show up in the installed software list just like something from the repository and be uninstallable there, etc.
Nice handling of LSB packages is easier for non-RPM distributions, because they can just associate the RPM MIME type with their LSB tool and users can simply install packages by means like "double click" or being presented with an install option in browsers.
RPM based distributions need to inspect the RPM somehow to make this distinction (unless the LSB RPM has its own MIME type of course)
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds