On 27 June 2018 at 23:57, Charalampos Stratakis <cstra...@redhat.com> wrote: > From: "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net> >> One question: who maintains the LSB? >> >> The fact that the Python portion was never updated may hint that nobody >> uses it... > > That could definitely be the case here. I stumbled upon that when checking > shebang requirements on Fedora > and apparently every distro has a sort of meta package that adheres to those > standards. In Fedora's case [0]. > > I don't have a good answer on who maintains it or even how compliant some > distros are, but I was wondering > if that topic came up beforehand and if any requirements were placed from > either side.
My impression while working for Red Hat was that LSB ended up being one of those bureaucratic standards that ended up sprawling so far beyond being a minimal system, while still leaving core capabilities that real world apps rely on underspecified, that compatibility and compliance testing became sufficiently painful that folks that cared about certifications started certifying a handful of major stable distros instead (with a common modern selection being Ubuntu LTS, Debian Stable, RHEL/CentOS, and SLES). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base seems to back up that impression, with neither Debian nor Ubuntu claiming LSB support at all these days. Given the rise of Flatpak, Snappy, and Linux containers in general, it may make sense to suggest that LSB drop Python entirely (similar to what they did for Java, albeit for different reasons), and instead recommend that portable applications requiring Python bundle their own interpreter. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
