On 8/27/19 7:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
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.
As I read the comments here, I think most agree that the LSB is not very
useful any more for software distribution of binary packages.
However, I think the focus is too narrow. There still needs to be some
sort of definition of what it means to be a Linux OS. We all know it is
more than the kernel, but what else?
As I review the LSB from a higher level, I do not know of a better way
to define a Linux system. Dividing it into Common, Core, Desktop,
Runtime Languages, and Imaging seems to be a reasonable starting point
that allows both binary based and source based systems to agree on what
is needed at a macro level.
Unfortunately even at this level the LSB is woefully out of date. Are
packages like At or Ed or Qt4 or Pax still relevant? Should there be a
mention of booting mechanisms or inter-process communication like D-Bus?
What about packaging and compression capabilities? Is the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standards (FHS) a part of the definition.
I think the discussion needs to move away from the commercial only focus
of distributing binaries and move towards a definition of what it means
to be a Linux system and how that definition can absorb advances in
hardware and software.
-- Bruce Dubbs
linuxfromscratch.org
_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
