[lsb-discuss] plugins
Darrin Thompson
darrint at progeny.com
Tue Feb 3 12:46:04 PST 2004
Doug Beattie wrote:
> Plugins by others would
> not normally be allowed to go here. If you, as someone other than
> the "provider" wanted to place something there it would not be
> LSB conformant.
>
> So to the statement of "The plugin writer is not concerned directly with
> the LSB." the plugin developer should be concerned as they would be
> violating the specification.
>
I'll consider myself corrected. Could exceptions be made by the
"provider" in /opt/provider to establish areas of interaction?
>>Plugins _not_ packaged together with an app still only care about the
>>app. If the app is LSB certified, the plugin writer can make more
>>assumptions.
>>
>>If the app is integrated into the runtime, having the app's location and
>>behavior within the runtime standardized still simplifies the plugin
>>writer's life, allowing him to make assumptions.
>>
>
>
> Making any assumptions and attempting to keep provided packages compliant
> do not seem to go hand in hand. This is a gray area that needs to be
> addressed so all will know and play by good rules.
>
Perhaps I state that too broadly. My take is, the whole point of having
a standard is to be able to depend on things being a certain way. If LSB
contains a mozilla plugin ABI, mozilla plugin packaging standard, and
mozilla related FHS, then plugin writers can produce packages that either:
1. Install and work
2. Are rejected by the runtime due to unimplemented parts of standard as
reflected by the package system. For instance, rpm won't install the
plugin because it depends on lsb-mozilla >= 1.6 or some such.
Darrin
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list