[lsb-discuss] architecture coverage

Dennis Gilmore ausil at fedoraproject.org
Thu Apr 30 22:00:09 PDT 2009

On Monday 27 April 2009 08:41:29 am Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 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.

Right  that's basically what  i'm looking for. I think that would be enough to 
allow redhat-lsb to be built and available for all arches.  something that 
says if its not a tested supported arch  but should roughly line up with lsb.  
and satisfy the deps for some packages.


-------------- 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/20090501/413b8631/attachment.pgp 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list