Re: Why must LSB go? Is it no longer a priority for Debian to be open?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> wrote:
> So a _proprietary_ binary linux application, then?
Partly. But I can imagine people wanting open source binaries to run
portably, too.
> 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.
The LSB folks were checking, though. There was a nice system showing
http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Upstream_Tracker
They got tired of that, though. (A subset is up at
http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/ )
> For example, libstdc++ has seen a ABI
> bump in Debian recently, because of a transition, making it de-facto
> non-LSB compliant.
I thought libstdc++'s recent bump was done in an ABI-backward-compatible way...
> And there's no way Debian would have hold its
> transition for a (not-actively checked) LSB compliance.
That's part of what an LSB maintainer would do: use existing tools to
do an automated LSB compliance check.
> Also LSB mandates .rpm packages, by the way…
That's a red herring, IMHO. I happily distributed LSB-dependent debs.
- Dan
Reply to: