[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora and LSB compliance



On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 01:40, Peter Boy wrote:
> Red Hat pretends that Fedora is LSB compliant.

I see no such claim:
  http://www.google.com/search?q=lsb%20site%3Afedora.redhat.com

However, one of the Red Hat developers stated that Fedora Core "aims to
be compliant" [1] with LSB.  I don't detect any pretense in that
statement.  They do seem to sincerely 'aim to comply' with LSB.  And as
far as I can tell Fedora Core generally complies with LSB standards
current during the time of development.  If not, no one has ever
bothered to complain in a useful manner.

Query Red Hat Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/) and you'll see
there have only ever been 6 or so reports filed which are obviously LSB
or FHS related.  Most are related to the same issue and filed at the
same time.

> But with the latest Core 2 Test 3 we are still missing the /media mount point for removable media
> or the /srv directory for www servers, ftp, etc. The pre-configuration
> of the apache still points to /var/www.

Have a look at the current LSB spec.  The current spec is LSB 1.3 [2]
published in 2002.  The LSB 2.0 spec (requiring FHS 2.3) has not
obviously been published (as of 2004-05-09 05:21).  FHS 2.3 spec was
published January 29 [3], well into FC2 development.  FHS 2.3 defines
the /srv, /media, etc. directories you cite as examples of Fedora
non-compliance.    

So, shortly after FC3 development begins you should make sure a bugzilla
RFE gets filed for LSB 2.0 compliance once the spec is released.

> Is there any planning to adopt to the LSB specifications?

Don't forget to file bug reports with upstream maintainers of a package
if they haven't implemented the current LSB specification.  Problems
fixed upstream are more likely to be fixed in Fedora Core.

If you want LSB 2.0 compliance in Fedora Core then the best chance you
have is to run the compliance tests when they are published.  Report
failures to the appropriate bug reporting system.


References:
[1]-http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-February/msg01025.html
[2]-http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/
[3]-http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
   (see also: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/announce-2.3.html)

-- 
 David Norris
  http://www.webaugur.com/dave/
  ICQ - 412039

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]