You are not logged in.

#1 2004-09-26 08:47:55

rasat
Forum Fellow
From: Finland, working in Romania
Registered: 2002-12-27
Posts: 2,176
Website

Linux Standard Base 2.0

The so-called Linux Standard Base 2.0 is expected to be officially announced Tuesday by the San Francisco-based Free Standards Group.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/s … mity_x.htm

Cyberspeak:

Linux isn't Linux isn't Linux. There are enough differences between the various distros that not all software will work on all versions of Linux. Each is a little different even if they're all based on the same Linux core (or kernel).

With a Linux standard in place, the press gushed, the end of Microsoft's desktop dominance was moments away. In fact, it seemed like tech writers wanted there to be really big, really good news for the Linux community.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ … ntor_x.htm

LSB:
http://www.linuxbase.org/

Offline

#2 2004-09-26 16:02:45

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

So where does Arch stand with the LSB?


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#3 2004-09-26 19:47:08

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

I looked at LSB when it was 1.0... I was thinking of ways to implement it in arch.

I could see a set of compatibility packages to make LSB apps work with arch, but I'm not going to put the time into it for a few reasons:
1) I don't see any companies being attracted to Arch because of its LSB compliance.
2) It'll be a lot of work for something we won't use that much.
3) Even if we are "compliant" we won't be officially compliant till someone pays the certification fee.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#4 2004-09-27 00:05:46

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

Even if we are "compliant" we won't be officially compliant till someone pays the certification fee.

I thought they said something about 'free' standards?  Free as in speech is fine, but it still has to be free as in beer, or you're restricting it too much to be free as in speech.  Wow, contradictions are fun...


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#5 2004-09-27 00:09:46

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

The standard is free in that everyone can access it, read it, and understand it.  Anyone can follow it too.  But if you want to be certified, you have to pay them to verify that you are.

Just because something is free as in speech doesn't mean it has to be free as in beer.  Usually it just is because charging for the compiled software and giving out the source code for free makes for a really bad business model.

I think the seperation is distinct enough that there are no contradictions.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#6 2004-09-27 00:16:09

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

I think the seperation is distinct enough that there are no contradictions.

Fair enough, have you looked into the new standards at all, or just 1.0?


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#7 2004-09-27 00:21:17

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

I don't have time to do a thorough analysis like last time, but there are probably still fundamental differences between what we do and what it talks about.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#8 2004-09-27 15:02:02

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

and LSB calls for RPMs.... blechh!!

Offline

#9 2004-09-28 01:25:22

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

RPM!?  OK, I officially don't care anymore...


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#10 2004-09-28 01:42:03

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

It just says that you have to be able to install RPMs, doesn't mean you have to use rpm as your main package tool.  How would Debian be lsb certified?


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#11 2004-09-28 02:02:39

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

Well, that's a good point.  I wonder if alien was sufficient, or if RPM had to be working on Debian first?  One of the TURs does have rpm for Arch though.


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#12 2004-09-28 15:10:49

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

but still..... RPMs?!?!?!?!?!?!11!!!!!one!!!

just messing... whenever I think of rpms i get this voice in the back of my head that goes "...noob...."

I very much dislike rpms...

Offline

#13 2004-09-28 16:20:02

bruno
Member
Registered: 2004-06-22
Posts: 26

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2 … PACKAGEFMT

"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)."

If you don't support package management through LSB commands and utilities, then you'll have to at least support RPM.


Bruno

Offline

#14 2004-09-29 02:02:39

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Linux Standard Base 2.0

The whole things just a pain.  Arch is great like it is anyway, although it would be great to have more clear standards for Linux systems.


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB