On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <[email protected]> wrote: > So a _proprietary_ binary linux application, then?
Partly. But I can imagine people wanting open source binaries to run portably, too. > The crux of the issue is that none of the (recent) Debian releases, and > none of the (recent) Debian-derivative releases have _really_ checked > that the ABI was indeed LSB's. The LSB folks were checking, though. There was a nice system showing http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Upstream_Tracker They got tired of that, though. (A subset is up at http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/ ) > For example, libstdc++ has seen a ABI > bump in Debian recently, because of a transition, making it de-facto > non-LSB compliant. I thought libstdc++'s recent bump was done in an ABI-backward-compatible way... > And there's no way Debian would have hold its > transition for a (not-actively checked) LSB compliance. That's part of what an LSB maintainer would do: use existing tools to do an automated LSB compliance check. > Also LSB mandates .rpm packages, by the way… That's a red herring, IMHO. I happily distributed LSB-dependent debs. - Dan
