[lsb-discuss] Modularization design proposal

Robert Schweikert rjschwei at suse.com
Tue Apr 3 22:41:19 UTC 2012

On 03/31/2012 03:57 AM, Denis Silakov wrote:
> Looks quite sane to me. My only doubt is about 'Languages' module. My
> understanding is that this one is primarily for interpreted/scripting
> languages for which LSB declares not ABI (ELF libs/symbols) but some
> 'modules' or analogues, as well as interpreter and its environment. XML
> doesn't fit into this category. Though maybe others have another vision;
> finally nothing prevents us to review purpose/content of the Languages
> module.

I do not think we have a "formal" definition for Languages. In any 
event, if we do I don't think we have anything that keeps us from 
changing the definition. Also, if we were to ever add Fortran it should 
also be in Languages and there we would specify the ABI.

> A thought about lsb-release - will it make sense to request submodule
> without specifying its module name? I.e.,
> lsb-release -p LSB-Toolkit-Qt
> instead of
> lsb-release -p LSB-Desktop:LSB-Toolkit-Qt
> (or add another option for this possibility)?

I thought about this but discarded the idea for the following reason:

I think we need to have these queries be explicit and "force" people to 
think about what they require. For example when someone queries 
LSB-Toolkit-Qt only it is implied that they get any basic Desktop stuff 
that Qt may depend on, however this is not expressed clearly in the 
query and thus may be forgotten. Therefore, the other stuff that gets 
pulled in is a surprise. Using the long query makes people think about 
this stuff (hopefully).

> In the example with trial-use LSB-Ruby it is pointed that submodule name
> doesn't change when moving from TrialUse to 'usual' module. However,
> users of lsb-release still will have to switch from
> "LSB-TrialUse:LSB-Ruby" to "LSB-Languages:LSB-Ruby" or even to perform
> both requests to check if LSB_Ruby is provided by the system.

Correct this may provide sufficient weight to implementing a "short 
query", i.e. lsb-release -p LSB-Ruby and make the tool find it whether 
it is in TrialUse or Languages. That said I am not convinced this 
outweighs the "hidden surprise" baggage outlined above.


Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list