[gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Jose Gonzalez Gomez]

    Hi there,

    I found today two new acronyms: LSB (Linux Standard Base)[1] and LCC 
(Linux Core Consortium)[2]

    [1] http://www.linuxbase.org/
    [2] http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq

    They seem to be interesting, as they intend to build on a common 
base, specified in the linux standard base, so providers of commercial 
software are able to certify their products on this platform, so any 
distribution complying with it may get kind of automatically certified 
(or something like that). I just wanted to mention here to hear your 
opinions, and comment on the possibility / interest of Gentoo complying 
with LSB.

    Best regards
    Jose

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Andrew Fant]

Jose,
    I would suspect that the odds of Gentoo complying with either of these 
standards are slim to none as long as they define RPM as the mandatory 
package management format.

Andy


--On Friday, November 19, 2004 18:05:53 +0100 Jose Gonzalez Gomez 
<jgonzalez@opentechnet.com> wrote:

>
>     Hi there,
>
>     I found today two new acronyms: LSB (Linux Standard Base)[1] and LCC
> (Linux Core Consortium)[2]
>
>     [1] http://www.linuxbase.org/
>     [2] http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq
>
>     They seem to be interesting, as they intend to build on a common
> base, specified in the linux standard base, so providers of commercial
> software are able to certify their products on this platform, so any
> distribution complying with it may get kind of automatically certified
> (or something like that). I just wanted to mention here to hear your
> opinions, and comment on the possibility / interest of Gentoo complying
> with LSB.
>
>     Best regards
>     Jose

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Martin Holzhauer]

the paketmgm. tool for LSB is RPM 
i dont want a gentoo with RPM

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:05:53 +0100, Jose Gonzalez Gomez
<jgonzalez@opentechnet.com> wrote:
> 
>     Hi there,
> 
>     I found today two new acronyms: LSB (Linux Standard Base)[1] and LCC
> (Linux Core Consortium)[2]
> 
>     [1] http://www.linuxbase.org/
>     [2] http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq
> 
>     They seem to be interesting, as they intend to build on a common
> base, specified in the linux standard base, so providers of commercial
> software are able to certify their products on this platform, so any
> distribution complying with it may get kind of automatically certified
> (or something like that). I just wanted to mention here to hear your
> opinions, and comment on the possibility / interest of Gentoo complying
> with LSB.
> 
>     Best regards
>     Jose
>

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Jose Gonzalez Gomez]

    Andrew,

    I just took a quick look at the links, so I didn't notice that :o(

    Anyway, is the RPM format mandatory for the whole system, or just 
for installing LSB compliant software? I mean, right now some of the 
packages in Gentoo are installed in binary format, as they aren't 
available in source format, so maybe you could build all your Gentoo 
system the Gentoo way, as long as you get sure you get an LSB compliant 
system, and then use RPM to install applications that are only available 
in that format. Keep in mind that we are talking here about commercial 
software, so you won't get the source for them, and I think that being 
able to install things like certified Oracle or IBM software would be 
benefitial for Gentoo.

    Best regards
    Jose

Andrew Fant wrote:

> Jose,
>    I would suspect that the odds of Gentoo complying with either of 
> these standards are slim to none as long as they define RPM as the 
> mandatory package management format.
>
> Andy
>
>
> --On Friday, November 19, 2004 18:05:53 +0100 Jose Gonzalez Gomez 
> <jgonzalez@opentechnet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>     Hi there,
>>
>>     I found today two new acronyms: LSB (Linux Standard Base)[1] and LCC
>> (Linux Core Consortium)[2]
>>
>>     [1] http://www.linuxbase.org/
>>     [2] http://www.mandrakesoft.com/lcc/faq
>>
>>     They seem to be interesting, as they intend to build on a common
>> base, specified in the linux standard base, so providers of commercial
>> software are able to certify their products on this platform, so any
>> distribution complying with it may get kind of automatically certified
>> (or something like that). I just wanted to mention here to hear your
>> opinions, and comment on the possibility / interest of Gentoo complying
>> with LSB.
>>
>>     Best regards
>>     Jose
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Jonas Fietz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html

I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google brought
up after googling for "gentoo lsb"

jonas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBnkDFLDPKnnhOBOYRAiqNAJ0TXXCkwdABBbc2D40lMMux5Z/yBQCdHEM1
5jSp6euNMpXyzNO5cyR5EPw=
=gSe4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Billy]

Jonas Fietz wrote:
> http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html
> I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google brought
> up after googling for "gentoo lsb"

Did you notice the date of the post?

Date: 	01 Apr 2003 11:35:25 -0600

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Andy Dustman]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:20:10 +0100, Jose Gonzalez Gomez
<jgonzalez@opentechnet.com> wrote:

>     Anyway, is the RPM format mandatory for the whole system, or just
> for installing LSB compliant software?

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.1/LSB-Core/LSB-Core/swinstall.html

"Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as
defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB
conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities). [1]

Distributions shall provide a mechanism for installing applications in
this packaging format with some restrictions listed below. [2]

"[1]	Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes
systems easier to manage. A future version of the LSB may require RPM,
or specify a way for an installer to update a package database.

"Applications are also encouraged to uninstall cleanly.

"[2]	The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for
its own packages, and of course it may use any available mechanism for
installing the LSB-conformant packages."

My interpretation of this is, Gentoo is LSB-compliant now -- on this
point at least -- because different packaging formats are allowed; and
the installer (Portage)  presumably calls "LSB commands and
utilities"; and while RPM is not in the system profile, you can simply
run "emerge rpm" to install it; and [2] specificially allows different
packaging for the distribution itself.

I suspect the rest of the core specification is non-controversial,
except perhaps the section on system initialization, and perhaps users
and groups, but I haven't read these.
-- 
Computer interfaces should never be made of meat.

Using GMail? Setting Reply-to address to <> disables this annoying feature.

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:51:49PM +0100 or thereabouts, Jonas Fietz wrote:
> http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html
> 
> I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google brought
> up after googling for "gentoo lsb"

Quoting from that same page:

"This is the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter for the week of April 1st, 2003."
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^

--kurt  (author of the original story)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Andy Dustman]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:51:49 +0100, Jonas Fietz <jonasfietz@gmx.net> wrote:
> http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html
> 
> I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google brought
> up after googling for "gentoo lsb"

Well, that message is a little old; you should examine the date carefully...
-- 
Computer interfaces should never be made of meat.

Using GMail? Setting Reply-to address to <> disables this annoying feature.

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Jonas Fietz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonas Fietz wrote:
| http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html
|
| I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google brought
| up after googling for "gentoo lsb"
|
| jonas

Darn, maybe I should ahve at least read it partly :-/

Jonas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBnkRmLDPKnnhOBOYRAk+XAKCYOwVKSKM2fm2n7Ys0oCRzbJS1OACfaW4o
kVheGTr94DShqydzxmPEO0E=
=s9QZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-server] Linux Standard Base and Linux Core Consortium

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:58:02 +0000
Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:51:49PM +0100 or thereabouts, Jonas Fietz
> wrote:
> > http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2003-04/msg00006.html
> > 
> > I am not sure fi this was the final decision, jsut what google
> > brought up after googling for "gentoo lsb"
> 
> Quoting from that same page:
> 
> "This is the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter for the week of April 1st,
> 2003."

Actually the headline isn't completely wrong, one thing I'm after for a
future portage version (not 2.1 though, more like 4.0) is support for
different package formats including RPM.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]