is LFS LSB compliant?

Jaqui Greenlees jaqui_greenlees at yahoo.ca
Sat Oct 8 02:02:15 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,

really? I never saw a package manager requirement in
it.

 and a
> particular version of
> > the c++ libraries.

true, since it is trying to be a standard, for
software portability between distros.

  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.
> > 

only because most people don't think standardising the
core is a good idea, they want to break comatability
between distros. just to follow in ms' footsteps and
lock customers into using thier branded versions

> >  You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent
> blog on the LSB:
> > 
> >  
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html
> > 
> > Ken
>

plain text email only.

html is spam.

unrequested attachments are spam.


	

	
		
__________________________________________________________ 
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca



More information about the lfs-support mailing list