Is your distribution LSB compliant?

[Christopher Browne]

On 9/1/06, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> http://www.freestandards.org/en/LSB_Distribution_Status

It seems to me that the importance or value of this is not particularly growing.

I daresay that I have never been in a situation where I was looking
for LSB compliance.

The sorts of software that I generally care to run tends to work fine
on pretty well any distribution.  Indeed, there's a significant vital
subset that works fine on AIX, which is demonstrably not very similar
to Linux.

The thing for which LSB was supposed to be useful was the deployment
of proprietary third party software, and as the set of free stuff
grows, that seems to be turning more and more into a niche, as opposed
to something of vital widespread importance.

Sometimes, by the way, the compatibility comes "for free."  On one
occasion, coworkers accidentally installed database binaries built for
RHAS/IA-32 on a SuSE/AMD-64 system.  NO LSB was thought about in this
process.  Remarkably, nobody noticed the mismatch for several weeks;
the IA-32 binaries were invisibly running fine (and this included some
challenging bits like database replication :-)).  I only discovered
the problem when trying to add in a "3rd party" library, at which
point the architecture mismatch emerged.  All wound up happy; we were
able to fix the mismatch without much difficulty.

But other than IBM pronouncements that they think it's important to
ISVs, I really haven't seen anyone looking for LSB compliance.
-- 
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This
is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and
`||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml