[lsb-discuss] architecture coverage

Dennis Gilmore ausil at fedoraproject.org
Thu Apr 23 15:13:12 PDT 2009

I wanted to bring up an issue i'm starting to see more and more at least in 
Fedora.  there are some apps depending on lsb functions/bits  etc.  however 
the coverage of arches that lsb officially supports is very limited.  so some of 
the secondary arches fedora is adding  can not resolve these deps.

repoquery --whatrequires redhat-lsb

I personally noticed it when trying to install bcfg2-server on one of my sparc 
linux boxes.  I think that lsb should say that when there is no specific 
standard for an arch that the generic interfaces makes up the lsb standard for 
those arches.   right now we have arm, alpha, and  sparc that are not covered 
but we expect that we will also have hppa, mips and mipsel support at some 
time.   the Red Hat lsb maintainer will not add support for non-sanctioned 
arches as he feels that it will break lsb compliance.   I'm not sure if the 
generic specs were intended to cover all arches or if its never been a 
consideration.  I feel that it needs to be clarified.

judging by http://packages.debian.org/lenny/lsb-core  debian has just gone 
ahead and added the extra arches.  


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20090423/b0e72d01/attachment.pgp 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list