[lsb-discuss] [Rpm-devel] lsb-discuss is far from dead (was: LSB packaginganyone?)
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Thu Aug 24 09:43:37 PDT 2006
Okay, now I'm gonna cross-post the reply to lsb-discuss
list as there was an actual LSB request in there.
>On 8/24/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
>> Correction: After Mats pointing out in PM that the list is far from
>> dead, I checked and my statement applies to
>> not lsb-discuss. lsb-discuss seems to be very healthy in list volume
>> and even has an archive (in contrast to freestandards-fhs-discuss):
>> Sincere apologies for the FUD.
There *is* an archive for freestandards-fhs-discuss as well.
The list info page is at:
No, there's not been much actual activity for a long time.
>You're forgiven because you posted the link to the LSB mailing list.
>I've always had a hard time finding.
>Meanwhile, I note that there are many msgs about additional
>Since the elements in the sysconf set are definitely within
>LSB standards control, I point out that rpm-4.4.4 (I fergit) has
>the ability to resolve dependencies against getconf symbols.
>One can see the runtime getconf(...) dependency name space by running
> $ rpm -v --showrc # hmmm, gonna have to add --showmacros
> Features provided by current getconf:
> getconf(GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION) = NPTL-2.4.90
>While many of the getconf(...) dependencies are rather useless,
> Requires: getconf(GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION) = NPTL
>is absolutely essential to indicate that rpm compiled +NPTL
>has a prayer of functioning correctly.
>Is it possible to get dependencies derived from getconf(1) spew
>permitted in the LSB packagingh standard?
>The dependencies would map to tests in .deb packages by
>invoking getconf(1), not hard.
Let's look at that.
LSB folks, anybody have any comments?
More information about the lsb-discuss