[lsb-discuss] Adding dependency on "lsb" causes huge downloads

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Thu Feb 25 10:28:16 PST 2010


lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
> This "use RPM more effectively" suggestion sounds good on the
> surface.  But I thought that LSB was supposed to actually make
> things better/easier ... sorry, just being MILDLY facetious.
> In all seriousness, this is a big issue.  Using RPM to help
> solve this may be a partial solution, but the extra issues
> with Debian/Ubuntu and deb packages make it even stickier.
> Perhaps some form of task team could be assembled to take this
> on and craft some solution proposals, as I doubt we can solve
> this via email exchanges alone.
> 
> - Doug Helbling
>  Intel TSRD


To level-set, there have always been two aspects to the
architecture of LSB:

- the functional (run-time) architecture
- the deployment (packaging) architecture

The latter has *always* been a sticky question.  The general
concept is that since LSB describes a set of functionality,
you can then abstract that functionality from the installation
viewpoint, such that if you ask the question "does this system
support LSB?" then if the answer is yes, an LSB-requiring
application can proceed.  We DO know that if the package creator
is allowed to dig around in the build system and build in
explicit dependencies, that you've definitely lost your chance
of package portability (even if the binaries might run), so
some kind of abstraction method is the only way to go.

As you can see, nobody's ever happy with all the outcomes of
this.  As noted in the beginning of the thread, using a package
dependency to bring in all of LSB may end up bringing in a
lot more than the particular app expects.  But trying to divide
that into smaller functional units runs up against questions of
how to divide it, how to deal with systems that predate such
a division, how to make sure the dependencies are properly
expressed in the app and how to keep this from getting too
complex.



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list