[lsb-discuss] Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

Jeff Licquia licquia at linuxfoundation.org
Mon Mar 31 15:34:35 UTC 2014

On 03/31/2014 07:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Last time I check and from dawn of time the LSB standard required
> application to be packaged in RPM format which immediately excludes
> distributions that do not use RPM as their default/preferred package
> manager

This is not correct.  LSB applications may be packaged in a number of
ways.  One of the possible ways is a RPM format, which supports a subset
of RPM's features that can be supported on non-RPM systems.  (Basically,
we only support RPM features that are also supported by the "alien"
package conversion tool.)

> How do individuals join the standards committee?

By participating:


> This highlights the fact that the joining process might be to
> complicated or lack of buy in from distribution and application
> developers due to the standards not being maintained/defined well enough.

I don't believe *joining* is that complicated; we take on any comers.
There is a bit of a learning curve, though, which we are working on
addressing, and that probably contributes to the difficulty people have
with participating in a meaningful fashion.

Another possible factor is that standards work isn't very "sexy", and
involves a lot of things that the free software community hasn't been as
good at in the past--documentation, testing, etc.

> Why should an application or distribution strive to follow and meet
> those standards when they are not in the buisness of selling or
> supporting that distribution, application or application stack since to
> me that standard has always seemed to be more written to favoring those
> that make profit out of GNU/Linux ( Red Hat/Novel etc) and related
> software rather than being focused on standardization/unification in the
> GNU/Linux ecosystem.

I'm sorry you have that perception.  We try to be strictly neutral
regarding distributions, and one of the goals in our most recent efforts
is explicitly to more aggressively target the community distributions.

> Few bugs open does not mean that standard is well written it might just
> as well mean nobody is following/using thus have faith in it and the
> fragmentation in the GNU/Linux ecosystem itself is evidence enough that
> LSB is failing as standardization body since it does not solve the
> problems it initially was created to solve.

Do you have concrete suggestions for how to solve those problems?

Jeff Licquia
The Linux Foundation
+1 (317) 915-7441
licquia at linuxfoundation.org

Linux Foundation Events Schedule:  events.linuxfoundation.org
Linux Foundation Training Schedule: training.linuxfoundation.org

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list