Re: Why must LSB go? Is it no longer a priority for Debian to be open?

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <[email protected]> wrote:
> So a _proprietary_ binary linux application, then?

Partly.  But I can imagine people wanting open source binaries to run
portably, too.

> The crux of the issue is that none of the (recent) Debian releases, and
> none of the (recent) Debian-derivative releases have _really_ checked
> that the ABI was indeed LSB's.

The LSB folks were checking, though.  There was a nice system showing
http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Upstream_Tracker
They got tired of that, though.  (A subset is up at
http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/ )


> For example, libstdc++ has seen a ABI
> bump in Debian recently, because of a transition, making it de-facto
> non-LSB compliant.

I thought libstdc++'s recent bump was done in an ABI-backward-compatible way...

> And there's no way Debian would have hold its
> transition for a (not-actively checked) LSB compliance.

That's part of what an LSB maintainer would do: use existing tools to
do an automated LSB compliance check.

> Also LSB mandates .rpm packages, by the way…

That's a red herring, IMHO.  I happily distributed LSB-dependent debs.
- Dan