lsb-discuss is far from dead (was: LSB packaging anyone?)

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:37:45PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:12:03AM -0700, Wichmann,
Mats D wrote:
> > >I'm not trying to discuss the LSB here (it's
not the proper place),
> > >just showing that this part is less well
thought of than the rest.
> > 
> > lsb-discussfreestandards.org - we'd welcome your
comments.
> 
> Well I'm on the list for a couple of months trying to
disuss
> libexec. The feedback is like waiting for 4-6 weeks for
an answer, and
> I'm received perhaps a dozen mail in total over a
period of 2-3
> months, almost all just copies of a printing-scfreestandards.org
> discussion. Looks rather dead if you ask me.

Correction: After Mats pointing out in PM that the list is
far from
dead, I checked and my statement applies to
freestandards-fhs-discuss,
not lsb-discuss. lsb-discuss seems to be very healthy in
list volume
and even has an archive (in contrast to
freestandards-fhs-discuss):

	
http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss

Sincere apologies for the FUD.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
Rpm-devel mailing list
Rpm-devellists.dulug.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-devel

On 8/24/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimmatrpms.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:37:45PM +0200, Axel Thimm
wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:12:03AM -0700,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> > > >I'm not trying to discuss the LSB here
(it's not the proper place),
> > > >just showing that this part is less well
thought of than the rest.
> > >
> > > lsb-discussfreestandards.org - we'd
welcome your comments.
> >
> > Well I'm on the list for a couple of months
trying to disuss
> > libexec. The feedback is like waiting for 4-6
weeks for an answer, and
> > I'm received perhaps a dozen mail in total over a
period of 2-3
> > months, almost all just copies of a
printing-scfreestandards.org
> > discussion. Looks rather dead if you ask me.
>
> Correction: After Mats pointing out in PM that the list
is far from
> dead, I checked and my statement applies to
freestandards-fhs-discuss,
> not lsb-discuss. lsb-discuss seems to be very healthy
in list volume
> and even has an archive (in contrast to
freestandards-fhs-discuss):
>
>         
http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss
>
> Sincere apologies for the FUD.

You're forgiven because you posted the link to the LSB
mailing list.
I've always had a hard time finding.

Meanwhile, I note that there are many msgs about additional
sysconf entries.

Since the elements in the sysconf set are definitely within
LSB standards control, I point out that rpm-4.4.4 (I fergit)
has
the ability to resolve dependencies against getconf symbols.

One can see the runtime getconf(...) dependency name space
by running

    $ rpm -v --showrc        # hmmm, gonna have to add
--showmacros
     ...
     Features provided by current getconf:
     ...
     getconf(GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION) = NPTL-2.4.90

While many of the getconf(...) dependencies are rather
useless,
the dependency
     Requires: getconf(GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION) = NPTL
is absolutely essential to indicate that rpm compiled +NPTL
has a prayer of functioning correctly.

Is it possible to get dependencies derived from getconf(1)
spew
permitted in the LSB packagingh standard?

The dependencies would map to tests in .deb packages by
invoking getconf(1),
not hard.

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-devel mailing list
Rpm-devellists.dulug.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-devel