Obsolete URL for Linux Standard Base Specification

[Joe]

Chapter 6 (​http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/pkgmgt.html), section 6.3.2.6, links to the LSB Spec using an old URL (​http://lsbbook.gforge.freestandards.org/package.html#RPM). I believe the current link is in ​http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Specifications. Note also that the LFS paragraph indicates RPM is "required" by the LSB, but that no longer appears to be the case (per Wikipedia).

[Jaqui]

The rpm format is still a requirement of the LSB as found:

​http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html

[DJ Lucas]

No. The page you reference specifically states:

"Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example...)"

RPM is recommended, but not required.

[alexander@…]

Still, for a system to be compliant, it has to have the ability to install all validly-packaged applications (i.e., it has to be able to install RPMs, either through RPM, or through a custom converter).

See, however, this thread (the idea is that LSB packaging requires, strictly speaking, not just RPM, but RPM <= 3.0.5): ​http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-lsb/0001.html

[Jaqui]

Replying to dj@linuxfromscratch.org:

No. The page you reference specifically states:

"Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example...)"

RPM is recommended, but not required.

True, but then, by recommending anything by name, they went beyond a BASE standard didn't they. ;)

naturally, they want every distro to support rpm, even though they only "recommend" rpm. Personally, since they can't actually follow their mandate and just keep it a base specification, LSB compliance is not something I implement. Yes, I've told them that adding thing beyond a base standard makes their recommendations useless and of no consequence.

[ Off Topic ]

A BASE STANDARD should read, there should be a package manager, with the packages following these guidelines. not name any particular one. The discussions over package managers on the lfs lists are an excellent example why.

[ /Off Topic ]

[Matthew Burgess]

Fixed in r8452.