Mailing List Archive

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:05 +0200, Timo Boettcher <spida@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
> Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far from
> LSB standards.
> LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
> set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
> distributions and enable software applications to run on any
> compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).
>
> Has anybody got hard facts for/against that? Any tests, of Gentoo,
> or of other Distributions?
>

It depends on what you mean by "deviates really far."

It is my understanding that Gentoo makes considerable effort to be
LSB-compliant in every area save one. The LSB-standard does not make
(sensible) allowance for multiple versions of large source based
packages like kde, qt, and gnome. The LSB-standard requires such
multiple versions to be foisted off to /opt Gentoo keeps such packages
in the /usr structure (where they belong) by creating
/usr/kde/versionnumber, etc. Unless the LSB-standard is modified, it
is doubtful that Gentoo will ever choose to be 100% LSB-compliant.
Gentoo does not put source based packages in /opt.

OTH, I doubt that the present generation of binary distros (even 100%
LSB-compliant) will get very far with "enable [ing] software
applications to run on any compliant system." because of the inherent
problem of matching up different levels of binary libraries (RPM hell
in all its glory).

IMO, the system structure of Gentoo is better than the LSB which seems
to have been designed (as I see it) to institutionalize the RedHat
system structure.

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ 20 minutes is the average that a Windows based PC lasts
before it's compromised.
- according to the Internet Storm Center.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi,


* Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com>, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 2:36:13 PM:

> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:05 +0200, Timo Boettcher <spida@gmx.net> wrote:
>> [...] Gentoo deviates really far from
>> LSB standards. [...]
> [...] Unless the LSB-standard is modified, it is doubtful that Gentoo will
> ever choose to be 100% LSB-compliant. [...]
Is there any official statement of a Gentoo-dev (or more than one) to
this?

> IMO, the system structure of Gentoo is better than the LSB [...]
So, is there any way to get the LSB to this "right path" [tm]? Anybody
tried to get this into LSB?

Thank you

Timo


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:36:13 -0600
Collins Richey <crichey@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:05 +0200, Timo Boettcher <spida@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
> > Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far
> > from LSB standards.
> > LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
> > set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
> > distributions and enable software applications to run on any
> > compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).
> >
> > Has anybody got hard facts for/against that? Any tests, of Gentoo,
> > or of other Distributions?
> >
>
> It depends on what you mean by "deviates really far."
>
> It is my understanding that Gentoo makes considerable effort to be
> LSB-compliant in every area save one. The LSB-standard does not make
> (sensible) allowance for multiple versions of large source based
> packages like kde, qt, and gnome. The LSB-standard requires such
> multiple versions to be foisted off to /opt Gentoo keeps such packages
> in the /usr structure (where they belong) by creating
> /usr/kde/versionnumber, etc. Unless the LSB-standard is modified, it
> is doubtful that Gentoo will ever choose to be 100% LSB-compliant.
> Gentoo does not put source based packages in /opt.

Collins, you are talking about FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) and
not about LSB (Linux Standard Base).


Cheers,
Renat

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Timo Boettcher wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
> Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far from
> LSB standards.
> LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
> set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
> distributions and enable software applications to run on any
> compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).
>
> Has anybody got hard facts for/against that? Any tests, of Gentoo,
> or of other Distributions?
>
> Timo
>
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
The LSB does not really apply to a source based distro. The first line from
the LSB Intro is "The LSB defines a binary interface for application
programs that are compiled and packaged for LSB-conforming implementations
on many different hardware architectures." Since gentoo is generally not
compiled and packaged, much of the LSB is irrelevant.

For a lighter viewpoint, look at this gentoo newsletter, and please, note
the date.
http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20030401-newsletter.xml
--
Jim

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:07:11 -0400, jim <javastead@fastmail.us> wrote:

> The LSB does not really apply to a source based distro. The first line from
> the LSB Intro is "The LSB defines a binary interface for application
> programs that are compiled and packaged for LSB-conforming implementations
> on many different hardware architectures." Since gentoo is generally not
> compiled and packaged, much of the LSB is irrelevant.
>

This one's a keeper.

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ 20 minutes is the average that a Windows based PC lasts
before it's compromised.
- according to the Internet Storm Center.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Collins Richey wrote:

> It is my understanding that Gentoo makes considerable effort to be
> LSB-compliant in every area save one. The LSB-standard does not make
> (sensible) allowance for multiple versions of large source based
> packages like kde, qt, and gnome. The LSB-standard requires such
> multiple versions to be foisted off to /opt Gentoo keeps such packages
> in the /usr structure (where they belong) by creating
> /usr/kde/versionnumber, etc. Unless the LSB-standard is modified, it
> is doubtful that Gentoo will ever choose to be 100% LSB-compliant.
> Gentoo does not put source based packages in /opt.

A while back, I had to install some third-party LSB-compliant software.
It, in complete compliance, wanted to install to /opt/$package/bin,
/etc/opt/$package, and /usr/opt/$package. Thinking that method of
splitting a program not managed by any package management across the
filesystem was a bit silly, I told it to put everything in
/usr/local/$package. Far more convenient.

--
Sometimes the garbage disposal gods demand a spoon
() The ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML Email,
/\ vCards, and proprietary formats.
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

jim wrote:
> Timo Boettcher wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>> Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
>> Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far from
>> LSB standards.
>> LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
>> set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
>> distributions and enable software applications to run on any
>> compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).
>>
>> Has anybody got hard facts for/against that? Any tests, of Gentoo,
>> or of other Distributions?
>>
>> Timo
>
> For a lighter viewpoint, look at this gentoo newsletter, and please, note
> the date.
> http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20030401-newsletter.xml

OMG... I read this sometime last year, when I was just learning about
Linux, must have just heard of the LSB, and knew nothing at all about
Gentoo.

I thought it was true (I remember being deeply alarmed, though)!!!

I haven't thought about it since then, but it is nice to know it was a
gag-- and, now being a Gentoo user, to "get" the gag.

Gentoo goes RPM! LOL!!!!!

Holly


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi jim,


* jim <javastead@fastmail.us>, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 4:07:11 PM:

> Since gentoo is generally not compiled and packaged, much of the LSB
> is irrelevant.
I must disagree in this... The gentoo I am running is pretty much
compiled, and there are packages (and binary packages), too. So I
guess it is relevant, especially since you can emerge rpm or apt and
install binary packages from redhat, suse or debian.

Timo


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:05 +0200 Timo Boettcher <spida@gmx.net> wrote:
| Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
| Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far from
| LSB standards.
| LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
| set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
| distributions and enable software applications to run on any
| compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).

Gentoo isn't LSB compliant, and it has no intentions of being LSB
compliant. LSB is basically only relevant to RPM-based distributions.
For a source based distro without a static base system it makes no
sense.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Debian, Mandrake, and SuSE are 3 big-name, lsb-compliant distros.
Gentoo and Fedora both have no intention of becoming compliant.
However, you can probably use alien to turn Debian or Mandrake lsb
packages to tar.gz, then install it on Gentoo.


I've yet to seen where LSB compliancy made a difference.... Who uses LSB?


On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 01:39:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:05 +0200 Timo Boettcher <spida@gmx.net> wrote:
> | Somebody told me that any knowledge about linux that is gained on
> | Gentoo isn't worth anything because Gentoo deviates really far from
> | LSB standards.
> | LSB is the Linux Standard Base who want to "develop and promote a
> | set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux
> | distributions and enable software applications to run on any
> | compliant system" (http://www.linuxbase.org/).
>
> Gentoo isn't LSB compliant, and it has no intentions of being LSB
> compliant. LSB is basically only relevant to RPM-based distributions.
> For a source based distro without a static base system it makes no
> sense.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
> Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>
>

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Saturday 04 September 2004 02:07 pm, Timo Boettcher wrote:
> Hi jim,
>
> * jim <javastead@fastmail.us>, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 4:07:11 PM:
> > Since gentoo is generally not compiled and packaged, much of the LSB
> > is irrelevant.
>
> I must disagree in this... The gentoo I am running is pretty much
> compiled, and there are packages (and binary packages), too. So I
> guess it is relevant, especially since you can emerge rpm or apt and
> install binary packages from redhat, suse or debian.

What he meant was, Gentoo is not compiled and packaged into RPMs before you
get to use it. If you want to make RPMs out of Gentoo ebuilds, that's your
own issue.

Also, the LSB requires X11 to be installed in some minimal form. Gentoo gives
you the freedom not to install X11, which is a great freedom to have if
you're running a server as some of us do.

Try not to get too hung up about the LSB if you're not familiar with the
issues surrounding it. Knowledge gained with Gentoo just as valuable as that
gained with Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE or the other non-LSB distribuitions
like Debian and Slackware.

Adam

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi Adam,


* Adam Collins <m104@nutthouse.us>, Sunday, September 5, 2004, 9:43:09 PM:

> On Saturday 04 September 2004 02:07 pm, Timo Boettcher wrote:
>> Hi jim,
>>
>> * jim <javastead@fastmail.us>, Saturday, September 4, 2004, 4:07:11 PM:
>> > Since gentoo is generally not compiled and packaged, much of the LSB
>> > is irrelevant.
>>
>> I must disagree in this... The gentoo I am running is pretty much
>> compiled, and there are packages (and binary packages), too. So I
>> guess it is relevant, especially since you can emerge rpm or apt and
>> install binary packages from redhat, suse or debian.

> What he meant was, Gentoo is not compiled and packaged into RPMs before you
> get to use it. If you want to make RPMs out of Gentoo ebuilds, that's your
> own issue.
Gentoo has support for installing rpms (emerge rpm). So,
theoretically, that part of the LSB would make sense for gentooo, too.

> Also, the LSB requires X11 to be installed in some minimal form. Gentoo gives
> you the freedom not to install X11, which is a great freedom to have if
> you're running a server as some of us do.
Yeah, the clientside libraries (IIRC one of them) must exist. No
server must be installed or even running.

> Try not to get too hung up about the LSB if you're not familiar with the
> issues surrounding it. Knowledge gained with Gentoo just as valuable as that
> gained with Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE or the other non-LSB distribuitions
> like Debian and Slackware.
That was what I am saying.




Timo


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi,

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Gentoo isn't LSB compliant, and it has no intentions of being LSB
> compliant. LSB is basically only relevant to RPM-based
> distributions. For a source based distro without a static base
> system it makes no sense.

it does make sense when you need to install some application
distributed only as LSB-compliant binary. Right now, one is out of
luck because Gentoo doesn't provide even partial support (such as the
differently named glibc and LSB ld.so linker replacement). It's clear
than Gentoo can't support LSB fully, but at least partial support
would be nice (and useful!).

Regards,
Vaclav


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:54:58 +0200, Vaclav Slavik
<vaclav.slavik@matfyz.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Gentoo isn't LSB compliant, and it has no intentions of being LSB
> > compliant. LSB is basically only relevant to RPM-based
> > distributions. For a source based distro without a static base
> > system it makes no sense.
>
> it does make sense when you need to install some application
> distributed only as LSB-compliant binary. Right now, one is out of
> luck because Gentoo doesn't provide even partial support (such as the
> differently named glibc and LSB ld.so linker replacement). It's clear
> than Gentoo can't support LSB fully, but at least partial support
> would be nice (and useful!).

In the few cases I've needed an RPM, I just checked to see that I had
the required libraries then installed it with --force. Also, in most
cases, there is a source RPM that can be used.

Based on my experiences with RPM and binaries, binary distribution is
an abomination as there are frequently little discrepancies between
libraries that become a big deal when you try to use the binary.

I'll sleep better nights knowing that Gentoo is immune from the RPM morass.

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ 20 minutes is the average that a Windows based PC lasts
before it's compromised.
- according to the Internet Storm Center.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi,

Collins Richey wrote:
> In the few cases I've needed an RPM, I just checked to see that I
> had the required libraries

And in the case of *LSB* RPM, this check will *always* fail on Gentoo
Linux. For example, LSB mandates that the binaries use ld-lsb.so
linker instead of ld.so and you don't have it in Gentoo system. This
is exactly why I say that minimal runtime support would be nice: so
that you could do with LSB RPMs what you already do with other RPMs!

> then installed it with --force. Also, in
> most cases, there is a source RPM that can be used.

I think you missed the part of my post that said "distributed only
as ... binary".

> Based on my experiences with RPM and binaries, binary distribution
> is an abomination as there are frequently little discrepancies
> between libraries that become a big deal when you try to use the
> binary.

Not in LSB, that's the very point of it. LSB exactly defines what is
available and LSB RPM package cannot require anything else. Hence,
any LSB RPM package *will* install correctly & work on a distribution
that is LSB-compliant. You seem to be confusing LSB situation with
"ordinary" RPMs (which I fully agree can be a nighmare to install).

> I'll sleep better nights knowing that Gentoo is immune from the RPM
> morass.

One of LSB's features is that it defines what is in the system, so
there's no RPMs hell. Granted, LSB RPMs tend to be huge because they
contain lots of libs in them, but that's done on purpose, in order to
avoid RPM dependencies hell.

Regards,
Vaclav



--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:58:58 +0200, Vaclav Slavik
<vaclav.slavik@matfyz.cz> wrote:

[ snipped ]

> > I'll sleep better nights knowing that Gentoo is immune from the RPM
> > morass.
>
> One of LSB's features is that it defines what is in the system, so
> there's no RPMs hell. Granted, LSB RPMs tend to be huge because they
> contain lots of libs in them, but that's done on purpose, in order to
> avoid RPM dependencies hell.
>

All of this is nice to know, but I'm not really interested in
introducing any kind of binaries (other than the few supported by
portage) into my system. Having more than one package data base is
just not my cup of tea. Why would I want to introduce a lot of huge
RPMs each containing its own set of libraries into my system? Any
binary RPM that is not associated with a corresponding SRPM is
automatically suspect from my standpoint. Also the concept of
requiring a different version of ld.so doesn't sit well with me.

BTW, you got your response from the developers. Gentoo is not
interested in becoming LSB compliant. I'd rather see the developers
concentrate on a more robust version of portage, as they are doing.

--
/\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
\/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
- Glitch (tm)

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Hi,

Collins Richey wrote:
> All of this is nice to know, but I'm not really interested in
> introducing any kind of binaries (other than the few supported by
> portage) into my system. Having more than one package data base is
> just not my cup of tea. Why would I want to introduce a lot of huge
> RPMs each containing its own set of libraries into my system? Any
> binary RPM that is not associated with a corresponding SRPM is
> automatically suspect from my standpoint. Also the concept of
> requiring a different version of ld.so doesn't sit well with me.

This is all nice, but it's valid argument for *you*, not all users in
the world. Please realize that what is good enough for you may not be
good enough for others -- so why take the option from them? What
about people who have no other choice but to use some app that
happens to be distributed only as a LSB binary and don't have the
luxury to be radical about (not) using binary-only stuff? After all,
you wouldn't be forced to install the LSB-support ebuild if you
didn't need it, would you?

> BTW, you got your response from the developers.

I just raised a point that wasn't mentioned here and that, as far as I
could tell, wasn't considered, even thought it's important one. I had
no intention to argue with you over LSB's usefulness, that's a
different topic altogether.

Regards,
Vaclav


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list