[lsb-discuss] Adding dependency on "lsb" causes huge downloads
nixscripter at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 19:55:53 PST 2010
> On 02/27/2010 06:25 AM, Daniel Harrison wrote:
>> The result is a compromise which sounds sort of like the discussion: if
>> you want to be fully LSB compliant, install the metapackage. If you want
>> just one application, install what you actually want, and let the
>> application dependency checking pull just what it needs. Maybe the
>> application could also do a simple global check, like looking for the
>> LSB version in /etc/lsb-release, and then assume the libraries it needs
>> are LSB compliant.
> You normally make your package require the lsb metapackage because then
> you know you are getting an LSB-compliant version of it. If you just
> depend on the specific package you want, there's no guarantee that
> specific package is binary compatible (eg it won't necessarily have been
> built with the same compiler as required by the LSB).
Perhaps I should have been more clear.
The presupposition was that the distro (as Ubuntu does) will always use
the LSB compiler, or compile a different version of the package pulled
in by "lsb", and that is what the application would require. The "lsb"
metapackage only has dependencies that use the right compiler, linker,
The result is that, if you don't need all of the LSB but part of it, you
can depend on just the part you need without the "giant download." The
metapackage itself is designed make it easy for the system administrator
to say, "give me an LSB-compilant system".
More information about the lsb-discuss