LSB; was: Re: starting Fedora Server SIG

R P Herrold herrold at
Wed Nov 12 17:55:47 UTC 2008

Sorry to come late to this discussion and break fedora-devel 
ML threading, as I am working from the web archive (I had 
tossed the underlying pieces already)

Dan Horák at Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:16:00 +0100:

> IMHO LSB Core conformance should be required in minimal 
> install

Sadly, as a long time participant in the LSB process, I would 
offer that there is not a well defined subset such as 'LSB 
Core' (and adjuncts or extensions such as: 'LSB Desktop', 'LSB 
Mobile Device', 'LSB Headless') are not a way that the LSB 
decided to go in 4.0 initial (the next scheduled release, due 
out later this year).  This is in part from a lack of 
developer mass and consensus.

LSB has a weekly conference call open to all contributors to 
the LSB; its mailing list is open as are its archives {some 
process happens 'out of sight' which is out of scope here}. 
Mats Wichmann and I have been at OLS, and the LSB BOFH or 
presentation for the last few years has drawn few attendees, 
and sadly either just the 'usual suspects' or people looking 
for a seat in a reasonably empty and quiet presentation room 


Earlier, Peter Robinson at Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:53:21 +0000

> For some reason redhat-lsb pulls in qt, qt-X11 and qt3. 
> redhat-lsb is certainly something you'd probably want in a 
> server environment but no idea why it would need qt

This being an 'redhat-lsb' lsb in the 3.x series.

LSB 4 is in release testing, and 'slops' all sorts of 'goop' 
in to a 'conformant' installation: sound, printing, X, and GUI 
widget sets, ... and more, in.  The 'use case' was that the 
ISV's needed each to be predictably present.

I predict that when LSB 4.0 releases, there will be much 
wailing and gnashing of teeth, because no-one from Fedora has 
'been at the table' arguing (and getting the consensus and 
running code in place for) the 'Server SIG' need case.

A year ago, and periodically, lone voices contributors to the 
LSB in the server wilderness, cry out:
 	Enough to the LSB

but no-one steps up to suggest the subset [and then to do the 
repackaging (breaking off the one GUI dep that 'Requires in 
much unwanted (in a server environment) GUI 'goop') in support 
within the distributions] to elide such cruft not wanted in a 
'server' environment.

LSB is willing and interested in having a sensible discussion, 
and reaching specification of such a 'subset'; this seems like 
a natural for people in a Fedora Server SIG to collaborate and 
participate with this 'upstream' at LSB.

In the weekly conference call today, it was clear that such an 
effort do advance a rational subset would be entertained (not 
in the initial 4.0, probably -- it is past feature freeze 
there, but later in that series)

Please join in.

-- Russ herrold

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list