[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Certification

Robert Schweikert 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
as follows:

Our applications are LSB certified. If installing applications X, Y you
need package (lsb-core + stuff), if installing application Z you need
package lsb-desktop.

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".

Robert

> 
> 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.
> 
> -ian
-- 
Robert Schweikert                   MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(Robert.Schweikert at abaqus.com)                 LINUX
ABAQUS Inc.
Phone : 401-276-7190
FAX : 401-276-4408




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list