[lsb-discuss] Packaging

Christopher Yeoh cyeoh at samba.org
Tue Oct 24 17:33:16 PDT 2006

At 2006/10/24 10:24+0200  Jiri Dluhos writes:
> > At 2006/10/23 15:54+0200  Jiri Dluhos writes:
> > > If we strictly mandate that LSB-compliant applications must use only
> > > LSB libraries, it would paralyze the whole system development. We
> > > will then get a classical bureaucratic deadlock (you cannot put a
> > > library into LSB until it becomes known practice, and it will never
> > > become good practice if it is not used, and it cannot be used before
> > > it is in the LSB).
> >
> > But not imposing these restrictions is even more dangerous. If you
> > allow applications to rely on features outside of the LSB there is a
> > very high risk that the application will not work either at all or in
> > the same way on different distributions.
> Yes, there is definitely a risk, but, honestly, it is not our risk. :-)

Whether it is our risk or not depends on exactly what you want to
allow. If you want to allow LSB compliant (or even certified)
applications to do this then it is definitely our risk. If LSB
compliant applications get a reputation for not actually being
portable in practice, then the value of being LSB compliant has

> The application developers are all responsible adults. If they use a special 
> library which is not in the LSB, they probably have a reason to do it, and 
> are ready to cope with possible compatibility problems.

Right, and I think its ok as long as they don't want to claim LSB
compliance. If you want to make it easier for "almost" compliant
applications to ship packages which are more portable then I believe
this is also useful.

> Linux is, and always was, about freedom, both in use and in development. We 
> must not take the freedom away from the developers - even if it is a freedom 
> to use incorrect tools.

Yes, its just that the developers should not expect endorsement from
the LSB/FSG of their packages being portable as its not an assurance
we can confidently give in those circumstances.

Note that we really don't care what tools an ISV uses to build their
application as long as it conforms to the specification. It just
happens to be easier at the moment to use the build environment (even
if its not that easy especially with complex build environments).

cyeoh at au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group, ADL
Canberra, Australia

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list