Re: Testing of lsbdev and sample implementation
Stuart Anderson writes...
> Technically, if rsh isn't a LSB specified command, then it shouldn't be in
> SI, and an application shouldn't be calling out to it.
Forgive my ignorance, I still don't have everything straight in my head(well
at least the LSB stuff). Is a "lsb compliant application" allowed to use
things outside of the LSB? It seems like it would be rather limiting if it
can't. So assuming it can,
- If the dependency is a library, is it expected to link statically? I guess
there's no way of know that library is there or declaring a dependency so I
would assume you have to go static.
- If the dependency is a command(like rsh in this case) then what?
> Possibly, we need to
> add rsh (and ssh), but it should be added to the spec first.
I personally am opposed to adding rsh, but I guess the argument could be made
that the client half is probably "standard". I don't know how many
distributions install rsh-server by default though.
ssh has crypto legal problems. While I'd love to see it in lsb I think it
would be the first crypto thing and would have to fight whatever battles that
means. I think its now possible(at least this week, who knows with these
things) and could happen though.
--
Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab
taggart@fc.hp.com HP Linux Systems Operation
Reply to: