Re: Why must LSB go? Is it no longer a priority for Debian to be open?
On 01/12/2016 12:46 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> 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/ )
Hi, Dan!
a couple of things here.
the Upstream_Tracker was a little different, it's not that LSB got tired
of it, the organization sponsoring that work stopped doing so and the
main person involved (now working elsewhere) took it off on his own -
that's the new site. Turns out I'm making use of that in a different
venue - it's a project worthy of support on its own, LSB or not.
second, those track the status of the libraries themseleves, but as far
as checking if a specific distro's library followed LSB or not, a simple
run of (lsb)libchk would go a long ways, but if there's not demand (on
debian) there's not demand, can't force anybody to do something that
doesn't look like having payback. I'm disappointed in how this evolved
(lots of my life in the LSB effort), but I get it.
things have moved along and LSB has not been able to keep pace, anyway;
I have a strong suspicion (with only minor evidence so far) that distros
built using gcc5 aren't going to play fully with any LSB version.
Reply to: