is LFS LSB compliant?

Nick Matteo 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>

> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-gener
>ic/swinstall.html
>
>
> 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
> happen.
>

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 mailing list