is LFS LSB compliant?
kundor at member.fsf.org
Sat Oct 8 20:20:00 PDT 2005
On Saturday 08 October 2005 13:40, Jaqui Greenlees wrote:
> --- Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org>
> ahh, that's from version 3, which I hadn't read.
LSB 2.1.0 also requires RPM to be present.
> actually, I would say that by not adopting a base
> standard, for both structure and libs, what it hurts
> is getting major software vendors to support linux.
> like get macromedia's desktop tools on linux, when
> they have to custom code for every distro. ain't gonna
Macromedia has to do no such thing. All they have to do for their code to run
everywhere is release their source.
If they aren't willing to do that, there's a heck of a lot more hassle to
install their hidden, uncheckable, unfree program, which is as it should be.
I see no reason for us to go out of our way to make it easier for others to
take away our freedoms.
More information about the lfs-support