[lsb-futures] Re: gnome-hello

[Wichmann, Mats D]

>> The other concern I have about the LSB is that currently it seems
most 
>> distros don't actually install the LSB conformance packages. They are

>> very small and only add things like /etc/lsb-release, a symlink for
the 
>> linker and so on, but still distros like Fedora and SuSE don't seem
to 
>> include it in the base package sets. The LSB has been out for a long 
>> time now, so this does worry me. How do you know if what you're 
>> installing into is LSB compliant if the necessary files and symlinks 
>> aren't in place?
	
>LSB Certified runtime environments should be providing an "lsb"
dependency
>for LSB Certified applications to prerequisite. 

It's been a concern for the LSB as well that the lsb package is
not part of the default install, but there's been plenty of
pushback when we've asked about this. It's a distro decision,
and they've made theirs...

Note that it might not be that small: although the package itself
may not install much, its main function is to have the right set
of dependencies such that when it's installed, the distro knows
they have an LSB environment in place.  In fact, they have typically
used this as a way to replicate the /testing/ environment, which may
include some extra stuff not required by the lsb runtime (expect,
perl, python, etc.). But those are indeed on most systems already.

For 2.0, systems provide lsb-core and lsb-graphics in architecture
specific and noarch forms.  When a desktop module arrives, it will
be expected to provide lsb-desktop (or whatever it ends up called),
and depending on this is how apps will be sure the correct environment
is in place.