Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Three Major Linux Distributions Certified LSB Compliant

Posted by timothy on from the oh-you're-so-compliant dept.

KevinDumpsCore writes "RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE are now certified LSB compliant!" Here's the announcement on the Free Standards Group's site. The Linux Standards Base (check out these related Slashdot posts) has been working for years to perhaps tame the what-lives-where cross-distro craziness. (Of course, distro makers are under no obligation to comply with the LSB's choices.)

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. I think this is Better than 'United Linux' by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 3, Informative

    a nice open standard like LSB, imagine the improvement in install docs, cross distro rpms...this is a good thing.

    --
    "The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
  2. Re:What about Debian? by ArtDent · · Score: 5, Informative

    LSB requires compliant distributions to provide, not use, rpm, and Debian does.

  3. Re:The story didn't mention which versions by phatvibez · · Score: 5, Informative

    (http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_prodlist.t pl?CALLER=display_product.tpl)

    -Mandrake Linux ProSuite 8.2 + first update CD
    -Red Hat Linux 7.3 with glibc 2.2.5-39+kernel 2.4.18-10 or later
    -SuSE Linux 8.0 Professional + aaa_base and Kernel Update

    --
    --- Brad (http://www.LinuxReview.net)
  4. Re:Nooooooo, evil RPMs! by Khalid · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been using apt for rpm (apt4rpm.sf.net) for ages, works insanly well !! resolve de dependency hell !

  5. It's close by hendridm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Debian 3.0 did pretty well compared to SuSE.

    Link shamelessly stolen from this post.

  6. Re:RPM... by blaine · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly who the hell puts apt in a cron job?

    I mean, I have a short script that I wrote that checks to see if there are any updates, and emails me the results. I have it run every night on my domain box, and thus, every morning, I find out if there are needed upgrades. At that point, I can go check out why the upgrades are needed, and perform the udpate manually.

    However, I would never have apt upgrade my system without me being there, and I highly doubt anyone else with any brains would. So please, stop spouting bullshit about how the "typical Debian user" does something that retarded, because I've never met a single person who has done that, and I've known a lot of people running Debian.

    --

    -[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
  7. Re:What about Debian? by printman · · Score: 3, Informative

    LSB requires the lpr command, not the lpr software. CUPS, LPRng, Berkeley lpr, and GNU lpr all satisfy the LSB requirement IIRC.

    --
    I print, therefore I am.
  8. Re:What about Debian? by noahm · · Score: 4, Informative
    The are some problems, for some reason LSB specifies a standard package, ie RPM I do not know why, I see no reason for it, but obvious this is a problem for Debian, which has its own (imo superior) package (debs).

    Grr, I'm so tired of people not getting this. The LSB usage of RPM is simply not a problem for Debian. We have no problems handling .rpm packages. See the rpm and alien packages (particularly alien) to see how we do it. The RPM thing is a non-issue regarding Debian's LSB compliance.

    To see how seriously Debian takes LSB compliance, go have a look at the archives of the various LSB related Debian mailing lists

    noah

  9. Re:LSB vs FHS by deblau · · Score: 4, Informative

    LSB is an attempt to standardize many aspects of a Linux distribution, such as binary (executable) file format, dynamic libraries, packages, and system initialization. They also standardize file system format, and the LSB 1.2 is FHS 2.2 compliant.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.