Re: a couple of questions on LSB compliance
Andrew Josey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 1. The FHS has conditions "If the X Window System is present". Does
> the LSB mandate presence of the window system (i.e. the support
> files /usr/X11R6 etc)?
X11R6 will be a required part of a fully LSB compliant system.
> 2. The FHS has conditions "dependent on the version of the X Window
> System supported". Does the LSB mandate the version of the X Window System ,
> that is X11R6 ?
Yes. I just talked to Dirk Hondel (of XFree86) about some of the X11R6
stuff in FHS and LSB. We may be making some minor clarifications to the
standard on questions like this that aren't fully addressed in FHS 2.0.
> 3. The FHS talks about presence of directories. Does the LSB
> require that the mandatory directories be actual directories, or
> are symlinks be allowed?
The current specification does not directly answer this question. A
future version will be more specific about this. There may be some
cases where it is not allowed. There will be cases where it is allowed.
> 4. The FHS does not specify directory permissions for the mandatory
> file hierarchy. Does the LSB demand any particular directory
> permissions or should that be left unspecified (i.e that the
> directories be searchable only)?
Permissions are unspecified by FHS at this time. Requiring
searchability would be an LSB extension of FHS, but is probably
reasonable for most directories.