Arch and LSB

sergej · 2006-05-15 13:52:25

How much archlinux conforms to LSB?

I see that /etc/lsb-release and lsb_release command are absent, but how about other things?

phrakture · 2006-05-15 18:52:09

The LSB also requires RPM packages... which, umm, we don't have.

briancurtin · 2006-05-16 07:46:57

i dont know anything about LSB, but according to the ubuntu wiki, Alien is available in the repos to change .rpms to .debs - does that count for anything?

phrakture · 2006-05-16 07:47:52

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3 … TALL-INTRO
Read through that section...

iphitus · 2006-05-16 07:50:37

phrakture wrote:

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3 … TALL-INTRO
Read through that section...

Take a closer look at the yellow bits

This specification does not require the implementation to use RPM as the package manager; it only specifies the format of the package file.

Implementations shall provide a mechanism for installing applications in this packaging format with some restrictions listed below.
Note: The implementation itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the LSB-conformant packages.

It pretty much just requests a mechanism for installing packages in rpm, which could be provided by a simple, but with discouraged use of, bash script.

James

phrakture · 2006-05-16 07:53:35

iphitus wrote:

Take a closer look at the yellow bits
This specification does not require the implementation to use RPM as the package manager; it only specifies the format of the package file.

Read through the rest of that section.

brain0 · 2006-05-16 08:19:25

That text is just confusing. Someone loved to contradict himself:

Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities).

So we either have RPM or have a "LSB conforming installer". So this doesn't actually require RPM.

Note: Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes systems easier to manage. This specification does not require the implementation to use RPM as the package manager; it only specifies the format of the package file.

First: I would never ever refer to RPM as easy. So now, the package format has to be RPM. Above it said that alternatively we could use a LSB conforming installer instead of using RPM.

Applications are also encouraged to uninstall cleanly.

Now, the most important thing is encouraged. Clean uninstalling should be madatory.

A package in RPM format may include a dependency on the LSB Core and other LSB specifications, as described in Section 22.6. Packages that are not in RPM format may test for the presence of a conforming implementation by means of the lsb_release utility.

I don't really understand what this package is trying to say, but now we have RPM and non-RPM packages. So we have two types of packages now.

Implementations shall provide a mechanism for installing applications in this packaging format with some restrictions listed below.

????

Note: The implementation itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for installing the LSB-conformant packages.

Now I am just confused.

After trying to read this jibberish stuff, I think I do not want Arch to be LSB conforming.

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-16 08:19:40

Slackware is or was LSB compliant so I dont see how Arch couldn't become so too.

It is possible to use RPMs on Slackware. So perhaps adding the RPM package to the repositories will enable Arch to become complaint? What about adding Alien?

http://www.die.net/doc/linux/HOWTO/mini … are-3.html

RPM support doesnt mean we have to use it, right? Though it will give us far more choice in packages as there are tons of RPMs floating around the net.

I think LSB compliance will become a valuable token in the future. I agree with the effort of preventing Linux from fragmenting.

brain0 · 2006-05-16 08:22:08

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

It is possible to use RPMs on Slackware. So perhaps adding the RPM package to the repositories will enable Arch to become complaint? What about adding Alien?

I see a KISS violation in providing two types of package management.

RPM support doesnt mean we have to use it, right? Though it will give us far more choice in packages as there are tons of RPMs floating around the net.

Tons of crappy RPMs are floating around on the net.

shadowhand · 2006-05-16 08:29:16

Why should Arch be LSB complient? Personally, I'm glad Arch isn't. To me, a "LSB complient" distro is just another way of saying "if we all do it, it's right and good!", which is pure nonsense. Distros that don't follow the "rules" (ie: conform) are the ones that keep innovation happening.
<rant>
For what it's worth, I think the Arch Way is better than any "standard" that some distros decided to create to set a baseline for quality. Arch is above and beyond that level of "quality" that Ubuntu or Fedora have.
</rant>

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-16 08:59:38

shadowhand wrote:

Why should Arch be LSB complient? Personally, I'm glad Arch isn't. To me, a "LSB complient" distro is just another way of saying "if we all do it, it's right and good!", which is pure nonsense. Distros that don't follow the "rules" (ie: conform) are the ones that keep innovation happening.
<rant>
For what it's worth, I think the Arch Way is better than any "standard" that some distros decided to create to set a baseline for quality. Arch is above and beyond that level of "quality" that Ubuntu or Fedora have.
</rant>

Well I think the key issue here is application compatability between distros. If this isnt a problem with Arch then LSB is probably a non-issue. While I may agree with your reasoning about the "Arch Way" we should consider the effects of such reasoning. What if all other vendors took that approach and failed to comply with any and all set standards? Its difficult to deny that it could trigger major fragmentation of efforts. Fragmentation would place a major hindrance of Linux's viability on the desktop and lure developers away. Developers dont want to make sure their software runs on 400 different distributions, they want it to work "out of the box" without any BS.

ScriptDevil · 2006-05-16 09:17:01

Why worry about compliance as long as ArchLinux does all that you tell it to. I believe Windows Users(They suck!) who are happy with tons of crappy gui installers do not worry about POSIX either.

sergej · 2006-05-16 09:34:05

shadowhand wrote:

Why should Arch be LSB complient? Personally, I'm glad Arch isn't. To me, a "LSB complient" distro is just another way of saying "if we all do it, it's right and good!", which is pure nonsense

LSB has at least one usefull thing - lsb_release and /etc/lsb-release

so your program can detect which distro you use...

(I did not read whole LSB - I just can not find /etc/lsb-release and ask this...)

barebones · 2006-05-16 12:42:05

This LSB thing sounds like rubbish. Why would we want a third party deciding our standards anyway? Last time I checked, Arch already had a pretty good set of them

Well I think the key issue here is application compatability between distros.

So long as devlopers continue to provide source code, this is a non-issue. In fact, I've never seen a third party devloper provide a .pkg.tar.gz for their program. Thanks to the community and abs, however, I've never not been able to get something to run on Arch either.

sergej · 2006-05-16 13:09:05

LSB was made for commercial application developers. I agree that patching opensource apps is often easy.

Commercial apps number is small, but they exist...

briancurtin · 2006-05-16 18:54:14

shadowhand wrote:

<rant>
For what it's worth, I think the Arch Way is better than any "standard" that some distros decided to create to set a baseline for quality. Arch is above and beyond that level of "quality" that Ubuntu or Fedora have.
</rant>

i definitely agree with this.

kill · 2006-05-16 21:08:47

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Well I think the key issue here is application compatability between distros.

The biggest thing that hurts applicaiton compatability is different library versions. Often enough application X won't work without library Y. While the LSB does lay down some guidelines it's easy enough to install a binary package of any sort. Rpm's are just gziped archives.

sergej · 2006-05-17 09:49:33

(rpm uses cpio, not gzip.)

But may be I agree that LSB not needed in arch...

lumiwa · 2006-05-17 19:43:07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison … tributions

On the above site are Linux distros and which are lsb compliant...

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-15 13:52:25

Arch and LSB

#2 2006-05-15 18:52:09

Re: Arch and LSB

#3 2006-05-16 07:46:57

Re: Arch and LSB

#4 2006-05-16 07:47:52

Re: Arch and LSB

#5 2006-05-16 07:50:37

Re: Arch and LSB

#6 2006-05-16 07:53:35

Re: Arch and LSB

#7 2006-05-16 08:19:25

Re: Arch and LSB

#8 2006-05-16 08:19:40

Re: Arch and LSB

#9 2006-05-16 08:22:08

Re: Arch and LSB

#10 2006-05-16 08:29:16

Re: Arch and LSB

#11 2006-05-16 08:59:38

Re: Arch and LSB

#12 2006-05-16 09:17:01

Re: Arch and LSB

#13 2006-05-16 09:34:05

Re: Arch and LSB

#14 2006-05-16 12:42:05

Re: Arch and LSB

#15 2006-05-16 13:09:05

Re: Arch and LSB

#16 2006-05-16 18:54:14

Re: Arch and LSB

#17 2006-05-16 21:08:47

Re: Arch and LSB

#18 2006-05-17 09:49:33

Re: Arch and LSB

#19 2006-05-17 19:43:07

Re: Arch and LSB

Board footer