[lsb-discuss] architecture coverage

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Fri May 1 05:27:21 PDT 2009


Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> 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.

Sure, that seems reasonable to me, providing the dependency
package would still indicate "provides the components that
would make up LSB".  Do you need anything from the LSB
project to make that happen?  


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list