[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Certification

[Banginwar, Rajesh]

Now that we know there are going to be some installs where "desktop"
components may not be involved, we should think about a second
certification. I still think we should match "Certification" = "lsb
package" model. LSB 3.1 matches to lsb provide; LSB Base 3.1 matches to
lsb-base provide etc. I used the name Base here to refer to Core + C++
(don't care if we choose some other name). 

All LSB certified distros will be automatically certified to LSB Base.
So any application requiring LSB should just work on LSB and will not on
LSB Base. We should also remember that network connectivity can not be
guaranteed and hence we can't rely on the package manager to do the
"right thing" and pull down missing pieces. For applications (read ISV)
focused on Europe and North America for example this is not an issue...
And we do not have any representation from emerging markets where this
typically will be an issue.

Thanks,

-Rajesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org [mailto:lsb-discuss-
> bounces at lists.freestandards.org] On Behalf Of Ian Murdock
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: Irina Boverman
> Cc: lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
> Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Certification
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> --
> Ian Murdock
> 317-863-2590
> http://ianmurdock.com/
> 
> "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss