[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Certification
Robert.Schweikert at abaqus.com
Wed Jun 14 15:13:41 PDT 2006
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:38 -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Hi Irina,
> On 6/14/06, Irina Boverman <iboverma at redhat.com> wrote:
> > During f2f meeting it was suggested to have 2 or 3 certification types:
> > core/c++ and desktop. Is this still being considered? If yes, will this
> > be available for 3.1 or only future certifications?
> The main discussion at the f2f centered around making it possible for LSB
> compliant distros to install only the minimum set of LSB modules needed
> by an application. So, if an LSB compliant application didn't
> use the desktop component, the LSB shouldn't require it to be installed.
> This isn't currently how it works in LSB 3.1. LSB 3.1 says a compliant
> application must depend on a single package, "lsb", which when installed
> ends up pulling in the entire LSB. The reason is as follows: As we were
> going down the two certification path for 3.1 (i.e., having separate core
> and desktop certifications), the feedback we got was that having more than
> one certification was confusing. I've been a pretty strong proponent
> of having a 1-to-1 relationship between certifications and user-visible
> modules (i.e., the things a user can install, depend on, etc. with the
> package manager), and that's why we ended up making everything required.
> There was pretty strong consensus at the f2f that we got it wrong, and
> that it should be possible for distros to install, say, only LSB
> Core if that's all the application needs, and to use the
> dependency mechanisms in the package systems to make things work.
> Mea culpa.
> So, we need to allow for this. Whether we can do this retroactively
> for LSB 3.1 or whether this is a 3.2 thing can be an open question.
> The real question is whether the 1-to-1 relationship between certifications
> and user-visible modules is important. I'm less convinced about this than I
> used to be. While there's clearly demand from the distros to provide and
> applications to require less than the full LSB, I'm not sure articulating
> that from a branding perspecitive (i.e., having multiple
> certifications) is confusing or useful. I'm leaning toward confusing now.
I agree, multiple certifications are confusing and gets our customers
back into the boat of calling us. The statement we would like to make is
Our applications are LSB certified. If installing applications X, Y you
need package (lsb-core + stuff), if installing application Z you need
This way there is only one certification but users clearly understand
the difference between server (number cruncher install), this is
(lsb-core + stuff), and desktop install (lsb-desktop) package.
IMHO the LSB certification should be one certification while giving
distribution vendors the option to install 2 packages while the
distribution as a whole is LSB certified.
The lsb_release command then could return "3.1 someName" where someName
is a suitable name for (cor + stuff) and in case desktop is installed
the command returns "3.1 complete".
> Thoughts? This is actually a great opportunity to follow up on the f2f
> and get into that "ongoing conversation" I talked so much about then.
> > Where can I find transcripts of weekly meetings?
> I'll typically post minutes within a day or so of the meeting, though I'm
> traveling this week and am a bit behind on the writeup. We'll also be
> recording the calls (hopefully starting in a few weeks) so you'll be able
> to listen in directly.
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(Robert.Schweikert at abaqus.com) LINUX
Phone : 401-276-7190
FAX : 401-276-4408
More information about the lsb-discuss