[lsb-discuss] allowing apps to "register" with the system (was Re: application certification questions)
dshirzad at real.com
Tue Mar 6 13:19:51 PST 2007
Ian Murdock wrote:
> Donya, what is your timeframe here? We're prepared to put an LF
> staff resource on this to get a solution for you as soon as possible,
> then integrate with the SDK for the larger developer population.
Hi Ian -
We need to do some more work on application features, so we will be
putting off further LSB work until closer to our ship time. Right now
we are looking at 3rd quarter 07 for release.
Does that give your team time to come up with solutions for the plugin,
dependencies and backward compatability issues?
> At some level, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have two solutions
> to what is arguably different levels of the same problem (lsbinstall
> and xdg-utils). We should consider merging them into a solution solution.
> On 2/28/07, Wichmann, Mats D <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
>> lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org wrote:
>> > Hi all -
>> > I have a few concerns regarding certifying my app for 3.1.
>> > 1) I believe there is a requirement to not install any files outside
>> > the specified application directory. I have three issues with this:
>> > a) what about installing symbolic links to /usr/bin and /usr/lib?
>> > What is the alternative here? I know this has been brought up in the
>> > past, but didn't see a definitive answer.
>> not allowed at present. an amendment would be needed to FHS,
>> but that group was never willing to budge on that concept.
>> we've discussed ways to get conforming software into the user's
>> (and/or the desktop's) search path, and we were working on a tool
>> which would enable this, but it didn't progress.
>> > b) we install a plugin for Mozilla in the Mozilla directory
>> I can't quite call this my favorite question, but it's one I've
>> been asking for years without ever getting any traction on it.
>> > structure. c) what about the portland project (xdg-utils)
>> > installing icons?
>> these will be fine; they follow an indirect model, which means
>> your package actually installs the files in your own heirarchy,
>> then you pass that file to the xdg-utils tool which puts them
>> in the appropriate place for that distro. To be technically
>> correct we should probably add wording to allow that, which
>> we can't do today since xdg-utils is not part of the spec.
>> But in spirit, this is the sort of thing the LSB wants to allow,
>> because instead of your package trying to force something into
>> some global, unspecified, location you instead call a tool which
>> does the work cleanly and with some efforts to avoid conflicts.
>> > Are we still certifiable if we install those files outside our
>> > directory structure?
>> I'm not going to directly answer this question because I
>> don't know. In the *old* app certification program, the
>> applicant had to answer a quesionnaire, one of the questions
>> was whether you installed files outside the FHS-allowed
>> locations. If the answer was yes, you could not be certified.
>> But the program has been rewritten and it may not read that
>> way any longer, I'll leave that to others to comment on.
>> lsb-discuss mailing list
>> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
More information about the lsb-discuss