[lsb-discuss] libjpeg API issues

[Robert Schweikert]

On 05/03/2013 08:15 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 04:41 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On May 2 18:59 Mats Wichmann wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2013 05:17 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As near as I can tell, SUSE is also using libjpeg-turbo.  See, for
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>>      https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807183
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> okay, the bug indicates people in the opensuse team are missing
>>> something.  It would be really useful if someone from LSB would update
>>> with information.  There seems to be an impression that the somewhat
>>> artificial split between lsb "core" and "desktop" means you can leave
>>> out parts required by the "desktop" part, which is not the case
>>> currently (we've talked about that, but it's an
>>>
>>> and yes, at last check, the libjpeg-turbo pkg doesn't include any
>>> library. which is an issue for "LSB compliance'.
>>
>> Mats,
>> I got an empty line in your post but I would like to know
>> the missing text.
>>
>>
>> Regarding the general issue LSB "core" versus other LSB functional
>> areas like "desktop" I filed
>>
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807747
>>
>> see in particular
>>
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807747#c3
>>
>> I did not find really explicit documentation regarding the question
>> if a RPM requirement for "lsb >= 3.2" is a requirement for "all
>> LSB functional areas" or only a requirement for "LSB core".
>>
>> I would appreciate it if you could show me appropriate documentation
>> or describe it more explicitly in the existing documentation.
>
>
>
> well, quite simply, prior to LSB 5.0 (which is not released yet), the
> LSB was an all-or-nothing approach.  Many years ago it was carved into
> modules with an idea of being able to accommodate different usage
> patterns, for example a server not needing a graphical environment.
> however, a choice was made (controversially, it could be admitted, but
> made nonetheless) to still offer only one flavor of "LSB conformance":
> that of implementing everything. Unfortunately, the wording that was
> trying to support a modular spec, which had already gone in, was not
> completely unwound, so I suspect it's a little confusing.
>
> The model will be changing with 5.0, fwiw.

Note that even with the modularization in LSB 5.0 
(https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSBModularizationDesign) there will 
only be 1 LSB certification, meaning an LSB certified distribution has 
to provide all requirements for all modules.

We will NOT have a "LSB-Base" certification. A distribution is LSB 
Certified or LSB compliant if and only if the distribution provides all 
requirements as outlined in the specification.

This does not imply that a distribution has to install all of the LSB 
components by default. A distribution may decide to only install 
LSB-Base as a default and thus make the "headless" server use case 
relatively easy to implement from a distribution perspective.

 From an application perspective, app developers can depend on only the 
LSB components the app actually needs rather than depending on all of 
the LSB. However, and application may depend on any one of the 
components in the LSB, thus the requirement for LSB certified 
distributions to provide all the components in the LSB.


HTH,
Robert

-- 
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
781-464-8147