[email protected] wrote: > many distros still supports lsb 3.1 or 4.1
They do, but that's almost useless for modern multi-platform C++ software, because of the lack of C++11. The only reason I'm still building to LSB standards is that my primary product is compiled from C generated from a domain-specific language. Its C++ add-on has been forced to drop LSB. I'm using LSB 5.0, and the only reason I can do that is that I don't need any OS-provided libraries except glibc and libgcc. This is extremely unusual for commercial software. I don't need an LSB 5.0 compliant system to run on, only one that is compatible, with sufficient versions of glibc and gcc. I can easily determine what versions of those I need by examining my binaries. -- John Dallman DI SW TO OT PC PDE Technology & Innovation Nullius in verba Siemens Industry Sector Siemens Industry Software Limited Francis House, 112 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PH, United Kingdom Tel. :+44 (1223) 371554 Fax :+44 (1223) 371700 [email protected] www.siemens.com/plm > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <lsb-discuss- > [email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: 28 August 2019 19:27 > To: Russ Allbery <[email protected]> > Cc: YW LEE <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Alan Cox <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] ISO LSB standard > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:18:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > [email protected] writes: > > > > > 1. building appstores or repositories that can be used by different > > > Linux distributions, comforming to different levels of LSB, and then > > > populated by different apps devellopers, hopefully including big > > > packages like gnome and kde, and possibly also packagers picking up > > > sources, maybe even debian packagers. In this way even smaller > > > distros could have a large set of packages, and developpers could > > > have one place to address a lot of distros. This could be built for > > > the different architectures including i386, amd64 and arm. > > > > This is a dying mechanism of software distribution. You can achieve > > the same goal by shipping a container or some container-like thing > > that includes all the shared libraries you care about. > > It seems a waiste of space if you install many such packages. > and where is the appstore for all of these packages? > It seems like you and others don't grasp what I am talking about. > > > > Given the lead time for a new standardization effort, I'm dubious > > there will be any remaining use case for this by the time a standard ships. > > Containers solve the problem of isolation from OS-level software > > changes in a more thorough and far less expensive way than trying to > > standardize the OS-level ABI. > > many distros still supports lsb 3.1 or 4.1 > > keld > _______________________________________________ > lsb-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss ----------------- Siemens Industry Software Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 3476850. Registered office: Faraday House, Sir William Siemens Square, Frimley, Surrey, GU16 8QD. _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
