Re: Linux Core Consortium
If ISVs want "exactly the same", they are free to install a chroot
environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply
a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach
I've had to take when bundling third-party binaries built by people
who were under the illusion that "exactly the same" was a reasonable
thing to ask for. Once I got things working in my chroot, and
automated the construction of the chroot, I switched back to the
kernel I wanted to use; the ISV and I haven't troubled one another
since.
If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then
it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
operating environment and not just a software porting environment, it
needs to have a non-trivial scope, which means an investment by both
ISVs and distros.
As a strategy for defining and extending the scope of consensus
preparatory to a release of a test suite, sharing binaries is fine.
But as a strategy for making ISVs and their customers happy, I think
it's a chimera.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: