is LFS LSB compliant?

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 8 02:12:45 PDT 2005


Jaqui Greenlees wrote:
>>Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>>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.

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html

>>>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

But when one has the source available to the package you require, the 
value of binary compatibility significantly decreases, IMO.  If your 
distro doesn't have a package available in binary form, one just grabs 
the source and compiles it (or asks someone else to).  The point is, 
you're not at the mercy of your OS vendor or anyone else - you're *free* 
to achieve pretty much whatever you want to.

Regards,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list