is LFS LSB compliant?

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 8 00:24:56 PDT 2005


Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote:
> 
>> hi all,
>>
>> i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant?
>>

<snip>

>  LSB - no.  The LSB is for providers of binary software, among other
> things it mandates RPM as a package manager, and a particular version of
> the c++ libraries.  No doubt you can build the necessary packages, and
> the specific version of gcc, to achieve compliance with a particular
> version of the LSB, but most people don't think that is worthwhile.
> 
>  You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent blog on the LSB:
> 
>   http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html
> 
> Ken

Just FYI, I am currently working on a LFS set of LSB compliant
bootscripts...and the needed install_initd script (who's functions are
stored in a separate file for other init types to take advantage of).
I'm working from what Nathan and Alexander had already done in the
bootscript CVS.

Mostly just because I like to see nice looking bootscripts as it's the
first thing the user sees when booting the PC, but having consistancy
here is a good thing for everyone who uses a sysv style boot (including
Jim's parallel boot scripts) IMO.  Unfortunately, I've not had a chance
to really look at runit yet (yes I had intended to try it well over a
year ago) so I don't know if it can take advantage or not.

But this is all on hold for the moment in prep for OOo-2.0...but I'd be
happy to put up some samples of what I have done so far if anyone is
interested.  It's really made the LFS scripts nice and easy to read.

-- DJ Lucas



More information about the lfs-support mailing list