Re: Re: LSB bastards
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:01:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If the software is DFSG-compliant, the LSB is and always will be a non-issue.
> > Debian will assimilate that software in due time, do a better job of packaging
> > it, and get the integration right where other distros will continue to
> > flounder.
> Which means that the LSB is not very relevant to Debian after all.
So then, it doesn't make much sense to get bent out of shape over the LSB and
cry 'fascism!' if it's not a major issue for us.
> > If the software is non-free, and you're of the opinion that this software
> > should be available for users of Debian, the LSB is a Good Thing, and its use
> > of RPM is also a Good Thing.
> Except that the LSB is not targetted at proprietary software at all. This
> is said in their Mission statement (http://www.linuxbase.org/mission.html),
> and I sincerley hope that they mean it.
It's true that the LSB does not exclude free software, but it's proprietary
software that stands to benefit most from such a standard. From a technical
POV, LSB packages will never be as good of a choice as native packages. The
libraries specified by the LSB are already well out-of-date by the standards
of most distributions; the set of libraries specified by the LSB is much
smaller than the set included in most distributions, which means lsb-compliant
applications with additional dependencies will need to include lsb-compliant
library packages which may conflict or be redundant with existing system libs.
All in all, there's never a reason that anyone would *prefer* LSB packages
over native packages for their distro, so manpower allowing, native packages
are still going to be created for the free software out there. Smaller
distros will benefit from LSB packages of Free Software, but Debian seems to
have an endless supply of man-hours to throw at packaging of random utilities.
;)
Steve Langasek
psotmodern programmer
Reply to: