Re: Why must LSB go? Is it no longer a priority for Debian to be open?
Le mardi, 12 janvier 2016, 08.12:31 Dan Kegel a écrit :
> Here's one use case:
> When I was building a binary linux app intended to run on all popular
> linux distros,
So a _proprietary_ binary linux application, then?
> I wanted very much to use lsb dependencies to make the binary more
> portable. So for me, the good part of LSB was having an ABI that
> worked across mutliple distributions, and debian dependencies that
> would pull in the appropriate packages when users installed my single
> standalone .deb.
The crux of the issue is that none of the (recent) Debian releases, and
none of the (recent) Debian-derivative releases have _really_ checked
that the ABI was indeed LSB's. For example, libstdc++ has seen a ABI
bump in Debian recently, because of a transition, making it de-facto
non-LSB compliant. And there's no way Debian would have hold its
transition for a (not-actively checked) LSB compliance.
Also LSB mandates .rpm packages, by the way…
> Without that, we were forced to simply bundle all our dependencies.
As some other proprietary application providers have been doing, you
should really build your packages against the distributions you want to
support. It is certainly possible to produce .deb packages installable
on multiple Debian-based distributions.
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: