[lsb-discuss] architecture coverage

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Mon Apr 27 06:41:29 PDT 2009

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> If the statement above would help in that regard, by all means -
> for each archticture, it's fully described by the generic bits
> plus the overlay of the arch-specific bits.  If there are no
> arch-specific bits then you could say that is the LSB description,
> but you'd also have to say it's not a complete description
> (in particular, there would be no references for the ELF parts).

In particular (and it's my impression that this might be the Fedora 
maintainer's concern), providing some kind of "lsb" package at a 
particular version number, a lsb_release command, etc. is not considered 
by us to be a statement of conformance, or a promise to support an 
architecture, or anything else like that.  We'd see the presence of 
redhat-lsb on sparc to simply be a useful shorthand for a set of 
interfaces that mostly correspond to the LSB.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list