redhat-lsb not in ExceptionList?

[Michel Salim]

On 10/29/06, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch at dell.com> wrote:

> OS versions that claim to be LSB-certified at a given level may have
> those, and they may be provided by a set of RPMs that are not included
> in the base distribution.  redhat-lsb "Provides: lsb", so any
> LSB-compliant app can "Require: lsb".  LSB is really no different than
> any other set of dependencies, except that they aim for wider
> cross-distro compatibility.  I don't see a strong reason to put them
> in the default buildroot, just buildrequire them if needed at build
> time.
>
Fair enough. I'm just curious - isn't the earliest Fedora release that
Extras targets - FC-3? - LSB-compliant, and comes with redhat-lsb
preinstalled as part of the base install?

-- 
Michel Salim
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~msalim
http://the-dubois-papers.blogspot.com/