LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-18-2013, 07:41 AM   #1
kikinovak
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: Slackware, Slackware64
Posts: 1,951

Rep: Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972
Slackware not LSB-compliant?


"Finally, I'm sure fans of Debian and Slackware packaging will disagree with me, but keeping to standards, specifically the LSB, also goes a long way to insure application compatibility. I think it's vital that all enterprise distros follow standards."

http://thelinuxworks.blogspot.fr/201...e-why-red.html
 
Old 05-18-2013, 07:48 AM   #2
irgunII
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Distribution: Slackware. There's something else?
Posts: 383

Rep: Reputation: 71
Anyone claiming to have the 'skills' ad nausea she does, yet has to say they use(d) anything 'ubuntu' in any way, shape or form, is an idiot. This means she needs to keep to her little-read blog and stay unknown to 98% of the *nix world. Quit bringing her up and she'll disappear for good and all.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 08:00 AM   #3
JWJones
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Cascadia
Distribution: Slackware, LinuxBBQ, OpenBSD, Mac OSX
Posts: 723

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
Interesting word-play on Ms. Martin's part. Although she doesn't specifically say that they are not LSB-compliant, she suggests it. I don't know what her deal is with Slackware, but she seems to have issues with it. What's the matter Caitlyn, Slackware and Debian not corporate enough for you? Her disclaimer aside, that was a Red Hat suck-up piece. Whatever.

Also interesting that she gives the actual link to Debian's website, but the Slackware link leads to this:

"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

Anything to do with the stink she caused about the Slackware website being down?

Edit: she fixed the Slackware link.

Last edited by JWJones; 05-18-2013 at 01:30 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 08:28 AM   #4
kabamaru
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: Greece
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 133Reputation: 133
@kikinovak: You definitely have a thing for her. Just admit it already.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 08:57 AM   #5
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
I don't know if RHEL is really LSB compliant. I also don't care about enterprise Linux. I would never use RHEL, because it is always extremely outdated and impossible to fix. I think the only thing going for them is that they say they are LSB compliant and that is enough to convince CEOs to use in in their enterprise ...
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 09:37 AM   #6
edorig
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Location: France
Distribution: Slackware; Scientific Linux
Posts: 106

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
You can have a look at the Linux Standard Base (LSB). It seems that SysV init scripts are required for initialization,
and RPM packages must be used for software installation. By that definition, both Debian (and its derivatives)
and Slackware are excluded. Of course, that definition seems to have been chosen to closely match RedHat.
The interesting question is how CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux, Mandriva, Mageia and ALTLinux
can be made non-LSB compliant.
 
Old 05-18-2013, 09:46 AM   #7
JWJones
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Cascadia
Distribution: Slackware, LinuxBBQ, OpenBSD, Mac OSX
Posts: 723

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorig View Post
It seems that SysV init scripts are required for initialization, and RPM packages must be used for software installation. By that definition, both Debian (and its derivatives) and Slackware are excluded. Of course, that definition seems to have been chosen to closely match RedHat.
Ahahaha, let me guess, Red Hat wrote the LSB? So, perhaps they'll change it to make systemd required for initialization, rather than SysV init scripts! Woohoo, everybody wins! Oh wait, no, Red Hat wins!
 
Old 05-18-2013, 10:08 AM   #8
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWJones View Post
Ahahaha, let me guess, Red Hat wrote the LSB? So, perhaps they'll change it to make systemd required for initialization, rather than SysV init scripts! Woohoo, everybody wins! Oh wait, no, Red Hat wins!
Yes, by writing the LSB and requiring RPM they made sure that only they can qualify by their own standards.
 
Old 05-18-2013, 10:38 AM   #9
pataphysician
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Posts: 47

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Slackware uses SystemV init, it just does it with scripts that are BSD style, Slackware also has a /etc/init.d/ directory for any Red Hatish scripts. So I'm not sure that would make it non-compliant

Also there is no requirement to exclusively use RPM for packages, just a requirement that all compliant RPM packages can be installed. Debian has a problem because the RPM standard for LSB doesn't have all the things in a modern RPM package, so really old but compliant packages can't be installed with Alien, but pretty much all modern RPMs can. In Slackware's case, since it's Packages are not overly complex like Debian, but just the opposite, I can't see there being any problems installing old RPMs that meet the LSB standard.

I think to get certified compliance one has to run a bunch of really buggy and hard to use tests, these seem designed to be a bar of entry.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 11:25 AM   #10
edorig
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Location: France
Distribution: Slackware; Scientific Linux
Posts: 106

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by pataphysician View Post
Slackware uses SystemV init, it just does it with scripts that are BSD style, Slackware also has a /etc/init.d/ directory for any Red Hatish scripts. So I'm not sure that would make it non-compliant

Also there is no requirement to exclusively use RPM for packages, just a requirement that all compliant RPM packages can be installed. Debian has a problem because the RPM standard for LSB doesn't have all the things in a modern RPM package, so really old but compliant packages can't be installed with Alien, but pretty much all modern RPMs can. In Slackware's case, since it's Packages are not overly complex like Debian, but just the opposite, I can't see there being any problems installing old RPMs that meet the LSB standard.

I think to get certified compliance one has to run a bunch of really buggy and hard to use tests, these seem designed to be a bar of entry.
Of course, this makes Slackware non-compliant. The /etc/init.d/ directory is empty, while their LSB requires
the S<whatever> and K<whatever> scripts to Start/Stop daemons when going from one runlevel to the other as is
done on System V. You may write such scripts, but since they are not part of the standard Slackware
install, you cannot claim that Slackware is compliant.

For the RPM packages, this is the same story. Just because "pretty much" all modern RPMs can be installed on Debian does not mean that you satisfy the stricter "all compliant RPM packages" can be installed. As to installing RPMs on Slackware, all you can do is use rpm2tgz and pkgtool. But there is no guarantee that you will be able to
resolve the dependencies of the RPM package you are trying to install. So it is again possible to claim that Slackware "fails" that RPM test. In short, the whole idea of "Linux Standard Base" is to narrow the definition to something close to RedHat, without making requirements that look stringent superficially. Non LSB-compliant can
then be used as a scare word to describe non-RedHat systems. But technically, it means nothing: System V init scripts can be rather confusing compared with BSD style scripts and whether you use .deb, .tgz or .rpm as your package system is irrelevant. When you install binary packages, you can always have your executable compiled against the wrong library version (say a lesstif libXm when your libXm is openmotif) or an older library that is not available on your system anymore (thanks to some automatic upgrade process) and you cannot trust a package
management system to do the right thing in such case.

Off-topic: Is your pseudonym "pataphysician" chosen in reference to the "Collège de Pataphysique" of Alfred Jarry (creator of the "Père Ubu") ? If that is the case, did you choose that pseudonym as a pun on "Ubuntu" or because Debian uses a spiral as its logo ?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 11:41 AM   #11
vdemuth
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: West Midlands, UK
Distribution: Slackware 14 (Server),Suse 13.1 (Desktop),, Mepis on the wifes lappy
Posts: 770

Rep: Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Yes, by writing the LSB and requiring RPM they made sure that only they can qualify by their own standards.
Actually, that's not quite true. As pretty much the leading Linux Distro, (at least in terms of commercial success and bank balance) they have created what has become the de-facto distro for producing a standard recognised by industry, and as a result of which they have the right to call it as such.

In much the same way that most commercial standards are created

As per the Oxford English definition:-

Quote:
Definition of standard
noun

something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations:

the system had become an industry standard
You may not like it, but that's the way standards are arrived at.

BTW, before any one starts slagging me off, NO I don't use and have no desire to use RedHat. Tried it once way back in 1995 and it just couldn't gel with it.
 
Old 05-18-2013, 11:49 AM   #12
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
They should rename it to the RHEL standard.
 
Old 05-18-2013, 12:09 PM   #13
chemfire
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 85

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
There are standards and there are standards. When you have an existing and diverse ecosystem like 'Linux Distributions' and then you come along and write a ex post-facto standard like LSB that only one existing product meets and worse other products could never meet without completely changing their character your standard is useless.

We might just as well say RHEL does not meet Slackware and Debian packaging standards. Its pointless. LSB if you look at its history and follow the money you pretty much can see its just a pay to play game. RH and SUSE can pay so they make the rules. Its "open" in form only.

Kinda like when Microsoft bought and paid for making Office Open XML a standard. It was/is an handy marketing tool nothing more. Real standards deal with very fundamental things like how the threads on a machine screw should be spaced and which direction they other to run. Which side the gas pedal should be on etc. LSB would be more concerned with the sorts of stuff POSIX is like "/" is the directory separator and how threading should work; if it were a real standard. As it stands now saying Debian or Slackware are inferior because they don't comply with LSB is like saying your Chevy sucks because the bumper off my Ford won't fit. Its a crock to fool CIOs who don't know any better nothing more nothing less.
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 12:17 PM   #14
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,988

Rep: Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555
So her point is that RHEL has a longer support period than competing distros? Well, that's... objectively true. Also, she's been careful to narrow the scope her argument to "enterprise space", where, if she means what it's commonly taken to mean, it's (probably) valid. The appropriate technology for "enterprise space" (and the compromises that it demands) is seldom what's best anywhere else.

And this is the second of two posts on that blog, and the previous one was on September 7, 2012? Okay

Last edited by dugan; 05-18-2013 at 12:44 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-18-2013, 12:59 PM   #15
pataphysician
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Posts: 47

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorig View Post
Of course, this makes Slackware non-compliant. The /etc/init.d/ directory is empty, while their LSB requires
the S<whatever> and K<whatever> scripts to Start/Stop daemons when going from one runlevel to the other as is
done on System V. You may write such scripts, but since they are not part of the standard Slackware
install, you cannot claim that Slackware is compliant.
True, I was thinking that people were saying that slackware doesn't use SystemV init at all, so is out because of that, which is not true, the scripts as is are non-conformant. The LSB allows for symlinking into /etc/init.d/ so one could symlink with compliant nameing to /etc/rc.d/ and get pretty close. I'm sure you would run afoul of the requirments for script commenting rules. But from practical stance, not that far

Quote:
Originally Posted by edorig View Post
For the RPM packages, this is the same story. Just because "pretty much" all modern RPMs can be installed on Debian does not mean that you satisfy the stricter "all compliant RPM packages" can be installed. As to installing RPMs on Slackware, all you can do is use rpm2tgz and pkgtool. But there is no guarantee that you will be able to
resolve the dependencies of the RPM package you are trying to install. So it is again possible to claim that Slackware "fails" that RPM test. In short, the whole idea of "Linux Standard Base" is to narrow the definition to something close to RedHat, without making requirements that look stringent superficially. Non LSB-compliant can
then be used as a scare word to describe non-RedHat systems. But technically, it means nothing: System V init scripts can be rather confusing compared with BSD style scripts and whether you use .deb, .tgz or .rpm as your package system is irrelevant. When you install binary packages, you can always have your executable compiled against the wrong library version (say a lesstif libXm when your libXm is openmotif) or an older library that is not available on your system anymore (thanks to some automatic upgrade process) and you cannot trust a package
management system to do the right thing in such case.
I was never trying to suggest that Debian is compliant on the package part, just inform people the LSB doesn't actually require the use of RPM, just the ability to install compliant RPM, Debian technically fails at this and so is definitely not compliant, but is it really in a practical sense a big deal, probably not. As far as slackware goes, who knows, again to actually know one would have to run the RPM package tests and see, but this is a buggy and time consuming thing. I think Slackware would have less issues than Debian, and I consider Debian's package issue with the LSB not very problematic in a practical sense. I agree that LSB certification can be used as a scare tactic, just like UNIXtm certification was sometimes used against Linux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edorig View Post
Off-topic: Is your pseudonym "pataphysician" chosen in reference to the "Collège de Pataphysique" of Alfred Jarry (creator of the "Père Ubu") ? If that is the case, did you choose that pseudonym as a pun on "Ubuntu" or because Debian uses a spiral as its logo ?
LOL, yes it is based on Jarry's idea of pataphysics, but I never thought of the hysterical connections one could make to Debian and Ubuntu, too funny, showing we sure live in pataphysical universe

I chose the name because I think Jarry is interesting pranksterish character and I like nothing more than absurd philosophies, and also because It often seems in a joking way that computers are very pataphysical, ie If a computer does something properly it is just infinite coincidence when it does it again.

Last edited by pataphysician; 05-18-2013 at 01:01 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] how to make Slack 13.37 LSB 3.2 compliant waddles Slackware 10 10-02-2012 03:01 PM
Why Slackware isn't LSB compliant? testing Slackware 64 12-07-2010 12:05 AM
Which distros are most Linux Standard Base (LSB) compliant? catkin Linux - General 2 08-18-2009 09:44 AM
Building LSB compatible application with LSB SDK - lsbappchk fails gkiagia Programming 0 01-12-2007 06:00 AM
LSB 3.0 released - Slackware compliance? Yalla-One Slackware 1 09-21-2005 08:34 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration