Re: Debian LSB compliance

[Mats Wichmann]

On 07/03/15 07:28, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

 We're also not checking this because the LSB compatibility of
 Debian releases has never been a topic and I don't see anyone
 asking a library maintainer to stay at an older version and/or
 maintain a patch series to keep this compatibility [2]. By the way,
 the only organism that I know is regularly checking Debian's LSB
 compatibility, is the Linux Foundation [3]. They haven't tried
 Jessie yet apparently.
 
 (There _exists_ a Distribution Checker, but last I looked, it was
 an intense headache to setup.)
 
 The crux of the issue is, I think, whether this whole game is worth
 the work: I am yet to hear about software distribution happening
 through LSB packages [4]. There are only _8_ applications by 6
 companies on the LSB certified applications list [5], of which only
 one is against LSB = 4. Amongst the distributions, RHEL 7.0 is
 LSB4.1, and Oracle 6, RHEL 6.0 and Ubuntu 9.04 are LSB 4.
 
 As a data point, I've just noticed that the Linux Foundation issued
  LSB 5.0 and FHS 3.0 [6] just yesterday. But that doesn't change
 the arguments, I think.

The current distribution checker is actually quite easy to set up,
it's just a package to install and off you go, answer a few questions
through a web interface. Should you have the patience to fire off 10+
hours of tests and then want to look at them. You would need that for
compliance which has never directly been a Debian goal, as you say.

To answer the level of questions you bring up (existence of required
libs/interfaces/commands) you actually need just two simple tools -
lsb-libchk and lsb-cmdchk.  LSB has a repository which contains these
at http://ftp.linuxbase.org/pub/lsb/repositories/debian/pkgs-5.0/ (or
4.1, or...)

This is not to talk you out of your arguments, which make plenty of
sens, just to inform that the basic level of checking is pretty simple.

-- mats


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5596e068.1000...@wichmann.us

Re: Headsup: ncurses soname bump 5 to 6

[Mats Wichmann]

Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:39 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
  

Indeed, what would this imply for our LSB compatibility?

http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/libncurses.html

seems to say libncurses.so.5 is the required one, will we lose LSB
compatibility if we start shipping libncurses.so.6 instead?



Upstream is doing that change; ncurses can't be forever stalled because
of LSB, you see. So, as far as I know, what will be needed is for the
LSB to be updated, at some point, and while this isn't done, and perhaps
for some time after that, distributions will need to keep on shipping
libncurses.so.5 along with .so.6, when LSB compatibility is needed.


LSB will follow what upstream is doing once it's widespread in distros.  
Hopefully
they'll all make the same choice, or we will have a problem. The need 
for .so.5 won't
go away since there's always a backward compatibility requirement, but 
normally
bumping the so-version means they can coexist.  Julien is suggesting 
this is not so? 
Does one ever have multiple curses programs managing the same screen 
concurrently?

Don't even think that makes sense.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]