FHS vs LSB

[Tom Wickline]

In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
any objections ?

FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/

Tom

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:20:29PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
> In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
> any objections ?
> FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
> LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/

Given that complying with the FHS requires a handful of args passed to
./configure, and complying with the LSB requires a completely separate
system to build your binaries on, that doesn't sound like a good idea to
me.  Indeed, if you're going to s/FHS/LSB/, there's no longer much point
in having a Packager's Guide at all: at that point, all of the packages
would be either binary-compatible or buggy, so the Guide would no longer
serve the purpose of helping platform-specific packagers create good
packages.

[Marcus Meissner]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:20:29PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
> In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
> any objections ?
>
> FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
>
> LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/

The FHS is a part of the LSB standard.

And we cannot be LSB compliant, we need way more in the matter of system
calls and ioctls than LSB allows ;)

Ciao, Marcus

[Vincent Béron]

Le mer 15/01/2003 à 22:20, Tom Wickline a écrit :
> In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
> any objections ?
>
> FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
>
> LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/
>
> Tom

Linux is not the only system on which Wine can be built (FreeBSD and
Solaris/SunOS comes to mind). The FHS covers various Unices, the LSB
covers only Linux.
And if Wine is distributed as a Windows application sometime in the
future... :)

Vincent

[Tom Wickline]

Vincent Béron wrote:
> Linux is not the only system on which Wine can be built (FreeBSD and
> Solaris/SunOS comes to mind). The FHS covers various Unices, the LSB
> covers only Linux.
> And if Wine is distributed as a Windows application sometime in the
> future... :)
>
> Vincent

Okay, Ill leave it as is FHS just upade to show version 2.2 as the docs
now show version 2.1 thanks for the info.

Tom

[Dan Kegel]

Vincent Béron wrote:
> Le mer 15/01/2003 à 22:20, Tom Wickline a écrit :
> > In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
> > any objections ?
> >
> > FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
> >
> > LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/
>
> Linux is not the only system on which Wine can be built (FreeBSD and
> Solaris/SunOS comes to mind). The FHS covers various Unices, the LSB
> covers only Linux.

I agree the FHS is the right standard to reference.

However, the LSB does not cover only Linux.  It's quite
likely Solaris could conform to the LSB.  The LSB authors
are eager to avoid actually requiring a Linux kernel.
> And if Wine is distributed as a Windows application sometime in the
> future... :)

Heh.  Well, it'll be a cold day in Hell before Windows conforms
to the FHS :-)

- Dan