Version number on LSB 3.1 base package?

Submitted by dank on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 03:20.

http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core... says "lsb-core-noarch ... shall have a version of 3.0" Is this a typo?

Version number on LSB 3.1 base package?
Submitted by Wichmann Mats D on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 12:30.

Dan Kegel wrote:
>
http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core
-generic/pkgdepend.html
> says
> "lsb-core-noarch ... shall have a version of 3.0"
>
> Is this a typo?

It's not, but perhaps an issue that should be revisited.
The idea was that revisions of the LSB within a major
version should be compatible so that the minor version
didn't need to show through at the packaging level.
Seems like some executive decisions led to a lot more
fundamental changes througout the 3.x series and that
might not have been quite right (we'll have to think
about this a bit).

Version number on LSB 3.1 base package?
Submitted by dank on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 13:00.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Wichmann, Mats D
wrote:
>> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core...
>> says "lsb-core-noarch ... shall have a version of 3.0"
>>
>> Is this a typo?
>
> It's not, but perhaps an issue that should be revisited.

Uh-oh. Have you checked to see if distros are obeying that?
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/sou...
says
Version: 3.1
Provides: lsb-core-noarch = %{version}

This popped up when we actually tried to add an lsb 3.1
dependency on picasa.

(Incidentally, we're trying an incremental approach, using
an lsb dependency to replace a bunch of explicit dependencies...
but keeping a few explicit dependencies that the lsb doesn't cover.
I know this isn't fair dinkum, but I suspect it will work in practice.
Perhaps it should be supported, as it provides an incentive
for ISVs to start using the LSB for *something* even though it
doesn't cover all the interfaces they need yet.)
- Dan

Version number on LSB 3.1 base package?
Submitted by Wichmann Mats D on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 13:00.

> (Incidentally, we're trying an incremental approach, using
> an lsb dependency to replace a bunch of explicit dependencies...
> but keeping a few explicit dependencies that the lsb doesn't cover.
> I know this isn't fair dinkum, but I suspect it will work in practice.
> Perhaps it should be supported, as it provides an incentive
> for ISVs to start using the LSB for *something* even though it
> doesn't cover all the interfaces they need yet.)

I always figured this approach would find *some* traction. For
a while we were talking about a program called "Requires LSB"
which is as you describe - the idea was, you can't be LSB Certified
because you're using other stuff but you knock off the base in
one go, and then tell us about what else you needed so we can
add those to our statistics on what else is important. Note
that now we have a lot of that data captured via scans of various
apps presented through the LSB Navigator.

Version number on LSB 3.1 base package?

Active forum topics