Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: > Flatpaks vs. Snaps and Docker vs. Podman are good. > However, there must be some standard rules in a democracy like Linux. > The Linux Foundation should take a step back and release a 4.2, as many > distributions still have LSB 4. > The 4.2 release should improve architecture compatibility and add a few new > features. > Then we can jump to an LSB 6 or something where more people have a say. > There are many new performers in the Linux arena after 2008, and they will > need their votes counted.
I used to find LSB extremely useful, in ways that Flatpaks, Docker and the like are not. This is because I don't produce applications, but libraries, intended to be used in-process by applications. They are closed source, distributed in binary form. However, LSB ceased to be useful to me, because it has never been updated to support C++ versions later than C++03. I had to give it up when I needed to use C++11 code, and I'm now moving to C++20. In the interim, I've also started producing libraries on aarch64, which LSB has never supported. A lot of work would be needed to support current C++, and more ongoing effort would be needed to keep it updated as C++ develops. The C++ committee is producing a new standard every three years. Further, the work to update LSB is not much fun: it's largely careful analysis of the standards documents and record-keeping, with only a little coding. So an LSB 4.2 to "add some architectures and update to support C++11, C++14, C++17 and C++20" would be a very large amount of work. The Linux Foundation stopped funding LSB because there weren't many LSB-compliant pieces of software being produced, and they had better uses for their funds. Unless you can mobilise a group who will take on the work - and it's a *lot* of work - of maintaining and extending LSB, it's dead. It always had the problem that it was intended to enable the distribution of closed-source binary software that was portable across many distros, which isn't very motivating to many Linux people. Nowadays, binary compatibility between mainstream distros is easier, because they all update GCC and glibc regularly, and the development processes for both of those large projects are better-organised. With best regards, -- John Dallman Siemens Industry Software Limited DI SW PE OT PC PDE 112 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1PH, United Kingdom Phone: +44 (1223) 371554 mailto:john.dall...@siemens.com www.sw.siemens.com Siemens Industry Software Limited registered office: Pinehurst 2, Pinehurst Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 7BF, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales No. 03476850. This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee please note that any distribution, reproduction, copying, publication or use of this communication or the information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact us immediately and also delete the communication from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: lsb-discuss <lsb-discuss-boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org> On Behalf Of Lee Thomas Stephen Sent: 17 February 2023 10:30 To: LSB Discuss <lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] Archive of this Mailing List On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:53 PM Mats Wichmann <m...@wichmann.us> wrote: > > On 2/5/23 23:59, Lee Thomas Stephen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As asked in > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fli > > sts.linuxfoundation.org%2Fpipermail%2Flsb-discuss%2F2021-April%2F008 > > 275.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjohn.dallman%40siemens.com%7Cc9d5371cd75b40b > > cb74008db10d2235a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C63812 > > 2266952226228%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 > > luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wQpwSdvYp > > IeV3T6F%2BiS4mrN3wUaEUIZ4a6woOSIvwoo%3D&reserved=0 > > The archives are at > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fli > > sts.linuxfoundation.org%2Fpipermail%2Flsb-discuss%2F&data=05%7C01%7C > > john.dallman%40siemens.com%7Cc9d5371cd75b40bcb74008db10d2235a%7C38ae > > 3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638122266952382907%7CUnknown% > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLC > > JXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mV0WEHI8DgGSp%2FIYpScWrD7Ubgdsk3l > > VlOdvT2DMfQo%3D&reserved=0 > > > > I came to this mailing list due to this comment. > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbu > > gzilla.redhat.com%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D2118596%23c1&data=05%7C01%7C > > john.dallman%40siemens.com%7Cc9d5371cd75b40bcb74008db10d2235a%7C38ae > > 3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638122266952382907%7CUnknown% > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLC > > JXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lx%2FIALDKPAuEeMWDcrTF0fxPQqmvFCh > > %2FM5dtqeOddbo%3D&reserved=0 I do system administration work and > > needed LSB in RHEL for my work. > > Not sure if you were looking for a reaction... > > The LSB project is essentially abandoned - partially superseded by > other approaches to achieving application portability/stability that > are now in vogue (e.g. Snaps, Flatpaks, and to some extent Docker > containers)... > not that surprised that Red Hat has phased out the packages, with the > non-availability of aarch64 support, something which LSB itself is > never going to get to doing; and indeed, the old versions of libraries > I'd agree are problematic. > > The single lsb_release command I find quite useful, but at this point > it's pretty much lying, as one of its reporting functions is to tell > which LSB modules are supported. There is a sample implementation if > you find the Fedora/RHEL one problematic to keep alive after they phase it > out: > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith > ub.com%2Flinuxstandardbase%2Flsb-samples&data=05%7C01%7Cjohn.dallman%4 > 0siemens.com%7Cc9d5371cd75b40bcb74008db10d2235a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4adda > b42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638122266952382907%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW > IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000% > 7C%7C%7C&sdata=yWfc8joZsi45AENMKCUDsI1Aa7FyvDpq4Y3nqzQR8uA%3D&reserved > =0 > > No longer recall how functional it is. Hi Mats, Thanks for your reply. I will check out lsb_release. My two cents are below. Flatpaks vs. Snaps and Docker vs. Podman are good. However, there must be some standard rules in a democracy like Linux. The Linux Foundation should take a step back and release a 4.2, as many distributions still have LSB 4. The 4.2 release should improve architecture compatibility and add a few new features. Then we can jump to an LSB 6 or something where more people have a say. There are many new performers in the Linux arena after 2008, and they will need their votes counted. Thanks for reading. --- Lee _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.linuxfoundation.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsb-discuss&data=05%7C01%7Cjohn.dallman%40siemens.com%7Cc9d5371cd75b40bcb74008db10d2235a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638122266952382907%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MKKNmDe2A36dWLuhISecVOgyJ1JlN0vtdMzSMDPhYMs%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
