[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Task 35905: LSB Application Battery

M. Drew Streib writes:
> For instance, we can _easily_ have LSB-compliant packages for Apache,
> Mozilla, Samba, Squid, etc if we make them ourselves. In fact, for
> at least a couple of these, we'll end up needing someone to maintain
> an lsb package in the long term anyway. (They will probably be included
> in most distributions, but they don't all maintain binary releases
> themselves but are generally happy to have someone maintain 'official'
> ones for them.)

I think this is a good idea. Having the source openly available will
make it much easier to debug the initial problems with implementations
as well as the building of the apps. To help with the testing of the
build environment I built a version of rsync (had to patch it to
remove an non LSB dependency) and packaged it from the viewpoint of an
ISV. The rpm is available at:


> I can certainly help with the list of packages in free software-land
> that span a variety of the areas of the lsb. I can also contact all
> of these projects to see if there is interest in having them maintain
> lsb packages. For those that won't do it themselves, but are willing
> to let someone else do it, I can work on it a little, but my RPM-foo
> is admittedly bad. (I've been a Debian user for a long time now.)

I encourage you and other people building LSB compliant packages to
try to do so using the latest version of the build environment package
(lsbdev) available at:


I think it would also be useful to try installing/running the packages
built in the sample implementation. I think the latest version is
available in the impl CVS module on SourceForge (Johannes - is there a
recent tarball version available?).

IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia

Reply to: