Here's one use case: When I was building a binary linux app intended to run on all popular linux distros, I wanted very much to use lsb dependencies to make the binary more portable. So for me, the good part of LSB was having an ABI that worked across mutliple distributions, and debian dependencies that would pull in the appropriate packages when users installed my single standalone .deb.
Without that, we were forced to simply bundle all our dependencies. - Dan On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> wrote: > Le vendredi, 18 décembre 2015, 21.41:21 Travis Hurst a écrit : >> Debian is meant to be an open system. That means dropping LSB makes it >> harder for software developers to write programs for multiple >> distros! > > The LSB standard is not enforced by distributions, you get subtle > differences despite "LSB support". Debian was also never "LSB- > certified". > >> It also makes a hit on users. Like what if someone had a >> linux program and they wanted to switch to Debian? > > If that program is free software, that's not an issue; either the > program _is_ in Debian already, or it could become part of it. > > Do you have a specific program in mind? > >> They wouldn't be happy as their programs aren't working. I am a loyal >> Debian user. Just why does LSB need to go? And why is this a good >> decision? Debian is what I'm most familiar with. I would hate to have >> to find another distro. > > The more complete reasoning are spelled out there: > > https://lists.debian.org/4526217.myWFlvm1rM@gyllingar > https://lists.debian.org/4682310.7LIWdV4Lar@gyllingar > > In short: the LSB support as was implemented by Debian was an > uncomfortable, unsustainable and unreasonable middle-ground. > > -- > Cheers, > > OdyX >
