[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Certification

Shaopeng YANG yangshaopeng at ccoss.com.cn
Wed Jun 14 20:15:40 PDT 2006

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.

IMHO, i wonder how to get exactly what various applications need. if the 
lsb modules are divided into different components based on application 
needs, i think this would increase confuse.

> 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 think different certifications is not the reason that confuse user, it 
is obscure distinction between various certification confuses user.
in LSB3.1, the distinction between different modules is not clear as 
regards user.
so, i think only one certification is better for lsb3.1

> 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

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list