Re: LSB Status
* Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> [020107 14:23]:
> Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org> wrote:
> >* Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> [020107 12:39]:
> >> Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org> wrote:
> >> >* Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> [020106 22:23]:
> >> >> Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about
> >> >> *.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed.
> >> >
> >> >Really? I guess that could be. On what basis do you make this
> >> >distinction?
> >>
> >> Because the LSB standard is about LSB and not about Debian or Redhat.
> >> You could implement LSB on windows (with cygwin) if you wanted.
> >
> >Mike, I read it a bit differently. Are you implying that Chapter 11
> >"System Initialization" does not apply to Debian?
>
> Indeed it doesn't apply to *Debian packages*.
This isn't personal, it's about understanding how to interpret the
specification for Debian compliance.
Yes I fully understand your premise. I just don't see where this
distinction can be found in the specification. Footnote 2 of this page
seems to apply to what you are saying.
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html
In fact it specifies *.rpm packages, not *.lsb. It also gets into
lsb-*.rpm package naming and the http://www.lanana.org/ which is beyond
the scope of what I wanted to clarify.
Personally I think you are operating (in good faith) from a false
premise and I just want to clarify if it is true or not in some concrete
way. LSB system compliance is about APIs and binary interfaces so that
software (regardless of package formats as described in Chapter 7) can
be used across different distributions. If LSB compliance only applies
to LSB packages, why isn't this requirement an appendix that applies to
everything or mentioned in the introduction rather than mentioned as a
chapter?
--
-- Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org>
Reply to: