Re: Debian and LSB (was Re: [seul-edu] ISO Project Questions)

["Matt Jezorek" <matt@bluelinux.org>]

Its not the LSB RPMS so much i was concerned with as the dynamic linking to
the interfaces provided and required by LSB. A lot of the distributions that
you will be building for will be following lsb specs and FHS specs.
So while a non lsb complaint system will be using ld-linux.so.1 as the
dynamic linker then ld-lsb.so.1 will be used by LSB compliant systems. This
means if they are not built for both linkers meaning two packages they can
only run on one or the other. At least this is how I learned it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Loss" <drloss@suscom.net>
To: <seul-edu@seul.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Debian and LSB (was Re: [seul-edu] ISO Project Questions)


> On 2002-12-22 17:26:38 -0500 Doug Loss <drloss@suscom.net> wrote:
>
> > Matt Jezorek said:
> >
> >> Not sure on Debian being LSB compliant I do know they are not in
> >> the certified list yet but I may be off, we can check on that I
> >> guess when it gets closer to the point of doing the packaging
> >
> > The best I could find about Debian LSB compliancy is here:
> >
> >
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2002/debian-policy-200208/msg00103.htm
l
> > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/lsb.html
> >
> I should probably add that I'm not overly concerned with total
> LSB-compliance within Debian (ability to install LSB RPMs, etc.),
> but primarily with the FHS (filesystem hierarchy standard).  We plan
> to have specifically Debian and Slackware packages in addition to
> LSB RPMs.
>
> --
> How valuable is my contribution? Share your feedback at Affero:
> http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=drloss
>
> Doug Loss              All you need in this life is
> drloss@suscom.net      ignorance and confidence,
>    and then success is sure.
>                          Mark Twain
>
>
>