[lsb-discuss] Using LSB as a mix-in to reduce dependency count in RPM packages

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Fri Aug 14 06:02:40 PDT 2009

Dan Kegel wrote:
> So we're working on RPM packaging for Google Chrome.
> Here's what I think our dependency list would be using various
> flavors of LSB: 
> lsb >= 3.2, lsb-core-ia32 >= 3.2, libgconf-2.so.4, libasound.so.2,
> xdg-utils, libcairo.so.2,  libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
> or
> lsb >= 4.0, lsb-core-ia32 >= 4.0, libgconf-2.so.4, libasound.so.2,
> xdg-utils or (assuming xdg-utils and libasound make it out of trial
> use in LSB-4.1) 
> lsb >= 4.1, lsb-core-ia32 >= 4.1, libgconf-2.so.4
> (And in practice, it could be that every lsb distro out there has
> libgconf-2 installed anyway, so maybe we could cheat and
> leave that off even though it's not standardized.)
> Golly, is LSB finally becoming sufficient for desktop apps?

And does it make sense for libgconf-2 to be a candidate
for inclusion? 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list