[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB status of sarge?

On Sep 19, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Jeff Licquia <licquia@progeny.com> [2004-09-14 13:47]:
> > > >  - LSB 2.0 will require a new version of the dynamic linker,
> > > > ld-lsb.so.2.  Symlinking this to ld-linux works, just as it did for LSB
> > > > 1.x.
> > > 
> > > Does libc or some other package provide  such symlinks?
> > 
> > The symlink is provided by the postinst of the "lsb" package.  Modifying
> > the postinst to provide both a ld-lsb.so.1 and ld-lsb.so.2 should be
> > trivial.
> > While we're at it, we should probably also resolve the issues in this
> > document with the appropriate Provides: in the lsb package.
> > 
> > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.0/LSB-Core/LSB-Core/pkgdepend.html
> I'm CCing the maintainer of the lsb package, Chris Lawrence.  Chris,
> can you please take a look at these issues?

These issues are addressed in lsb 2.0-1, which I just uploaded to
unstable (I'm not entirely sure the approach for AMD64 is correct, but
for sarge I don't think this is an issue).  There probably are some
others that should be dealt with, but the current state of the LSB
documentation is an impenetrable mess; call me back when there's
either a proper changes document detailing the changes between 1.3 and
2.0, or it's been merged back into something sensible.

Someone more expert and up-to-speed than I will have to figure out
what we need to do to accommodate the C++ and graphics specs.  AFAICS
all it would need to be is a dummy package (lsb-cxx providing
lsb-cxx-noarch and lsb-cxx-{arch}) with dependencies on lsb and
libstdc++5, and lsb would need the lsb-graphics-* provides (I suppose
a separate lsb-core could be created that would be a subset of lsb,
and lsb could depend on that and the X stuff; any thoughts?).

Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/

Reply to: