Linux Standards Base

DJ Lucas dj at
Mon Oct 26 22:29:34 PDT 2009

On 10/26/2009 10:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find that we
> have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get to compliance.  The
> discussion below is only a start.  There may be more needed after I get their
> more comprehensive test suite running.
> Although I've installed several programs on top of my base LFS test system, the
> program check now gives me:
> Couldn't find at
> Couldn't find batch
> Couldn't find cpio
> Couldn't find crontab
> Couldn't find install_initd
> Couldn't find java
> Couldn't find lp
> Couldn't find lpr
> Couldn't find mailx
> Couldn't find pax
> Couldn't find remove_initd
> Couldn't find sendmail
> Couldn't find time
> Couldn't find xdg-desktop-icon
> Couldn't find xdg-desktop-menu
> Couldn't find xdg-email
> Couldn't find xdg-icon-resource
> Couldn't find xdg-mime
> Couldn't find xdg-open
> Couldn't find xdg-screensaver
> Of course, several of these are in BLFS, but many are not: xdg-utils, pax, cpio,
> at, batch, and gnu time jump out as being needed.
Well, cpio is in BLFS...others need to be added.
> Some (install_initd and remove_initd) are not familiar to me at all.
Dan Nicholson started a project "initd-tools" some time ago.  I'm not 
sure what the status of that project is, but at last check, they worked 
flawlessly when I was working on the lsb-v3 boot scripts in contrib.

Note that the lsb-v3 scripts are not completed, and when I quit working 
on them, the ability for LFS adoption of them was not entirely 
complete.  The base scripts are not required to use 
/lib/lsb/init-functions, but the headers from those contrib scripts are 
required to be added to the existing scripts, though I'd like to see a 
full replacement as it will fix things like stale pid files, check 
processes before trying to kill them, validate signals, etc.  IIRC, I 
broke something when trying to work in the original 
/etc/init.d/functions for backwards compatibility with the new rc 
script, but other tasks took precedence and I eventually lost interest.  
I still have a set before the modification on a running system.  If a 
push for LSB compliance is made, then I'll probably get back into them 
pretty quick.
> We have fcron, but I'm not sure if we need to create a link from fcrontab to
> crontab or if Vixie cron is required.
I started to look into this previously.  There are helper scripts that 
allow for the /etc/cron.d, /etc/crontab, and 
/etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly}.  Unfortunately, I do not have a 
link for you ATM, and I still don't know if a symlink crontab -> 
fcrontab will work.
> Should we be installing some of these (e.g. cpio, pax, Gnu time) in LFS?
I don't honestly think it matters which book installs them, both books 
will have to be involved.  Historically, well from LFS-2.x on at least, 
LFS included only what was required to rebuild itself.  That said, given 
the time it takes to release BLFS, I have no problem offloading some of 
BLFS to the LFS book, but obviously some discussion and limits are 
required if the goals of LFS are to change. :-)
> ---------
> The library requirements are a bit better.  Right now I'm only missing:
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Unable to find library
> Of course most of these are in BLFS, but I'm concerned about the libncurses
> requirement.  In LFS we install libncursesw.  Ubuntu has both.  Should we
> install both in LFS also?
Yes.  I've mentioned this fairly recently.  Alexander was first to bring 
this to our attention.  A symlink is not sufficient as specific errors 
are expected in the test suite.
> We install jpeg7 in BLFS.  We used to install jpegsrc.v6b.tar.gz which gives
>  I'll investigate to see if we need both versions.

I don't have an answer for this one.  There have been some minor issues 
with jpeg-7 (gtk washout issue), indicating that they are not 100% ABI 
compatible, so a symlink is probably not sufficient.
> ----------
> What I want to do is to introduce LSB in the Preface of LFS and then continue
> with more discussion in BLFS "After LFS Configuration Issues".  In the
> appropriate packages, add a comment that "This package is needed for LSB
> compliance."  I some cases there are definite alternatives.  For instance the
> sendmail requirement can be met with any of the MTA packages in BLFS.
> ----------
The sendmail scripts provided by other MTA's would probably be 
acceptable, however, I am not entirely sure of this.  Probably have to 
run the test suite against each of them to find out.  It may be that 
we'd have to modify postscript (what other MTAs? Courier is no longer 
included) to not install over the existing ones.
> Comments and discussion are welcome.
I certainly hope so! :-)

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list