LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
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 11-19-2007, 07:35 AM   #1
testing
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 2
Why Slackware isn't LSB compliant?


Hi guys,

I have looking for a answer in many Linux forums, in discussion lists, in the Slackware Official Site, etc. And unfortunately I did not find anything that would answer my question. So I would like to know why Slackware Linux is not LSB (Linux Standard Base) compliant? Or why LSB did not recognize Slackware Linux, yet?

p.s. I send a mail to info@slackware.com but they did not reply.

regards,
testing.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 07:38 AM   #2
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Well, for one thing, the LSB calls for packages to be installed via RPM, and Slackware has it's own package format.

As to the rest, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:11 AM   #3
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728
Perhaps because Slackware came first??

And---if, as noted above, LSB requires RPM, then I would it say it is flawed. What are all the apt/.deb users supposed to do?
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:27 AM   #4
redgoblin
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: 40
Slight difference on that. LSB doesn't call for packages to be RPM. Rather to be LSB compliant a distribution must be 'able' to use RPM.

Debian has this as an issue as well. It still uses .deb packages* for all it's repositories. But as a nod toward LSB compliance it's capable of handling RPMs via the Alien system (essentially it converts it to a .deb and then tries to fill in the gaps).

Not really a Slackware user, but I recall reading somewhere that it was LSB compliant?

[ * A far better format I think, but I'm really not trying to start a flame war on this one]
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:33 AM   #5
Droo
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
Well, for one thing, the LSB calls for packages to be installed via RPM, and Slackware has it's own package format.

As to the rest, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
According to that wiki
Quote:
the standard does not dictate what package format the operating system must use for its own packages, merely that RPM must be supported to allow packages from third-party distributors to be installed on a conforming system
I can't think of ever having any issues using rpm2tgz to convert rpm's to slackware tgz package formats. Then just installpkg the resulting tgz file.

At a guess it'd probably be something to do more with the file sys? personally I prefer slacks layout over rh etc.

Last edited by Droo; 11-19-2007 at 08:35 AM.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:49 AM   #6
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
If you want another good idea of why not very many people who don't have piles of money to throw at the problem really want anything to do with the LSB, just try reading it.

They've basically frozen the ABIs for everything in stone, which is all well and good for them, but as a lovely side effect doesn't allow much wiggle room to fix anything that is later determined to be fatally broken.

Last edited by evilDagmar; 11-19-2007 at 08:50 AM. Reason: grammerses
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-19-2007, 09:44 AM   #7
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,749

Rep: Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461
Yeah, there's lots of contradictions in the syntax required for many programs. And they don't always agree with the latest POSIX standards either. Most distros have been pushing the last couple of years for better POSIX conformance, but even that makes lot's of people angry as it breaks lots of programs and scripts even though the latest standard is from 2003. Add in differing opinions and conformance levels to FSF, OSS and GNU standards and it makes for a pretty mess -not to mention LFSH...
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:58 AM   #8
b0uncer
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Distribution: CentOS, OS X
Posts: 5,131

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
There are a lot of "standards" and capital character combinations that would help the mankind to have a better future..but I don't really think it's going to work like that. For Windows or OS X it's a must to have some rules on how to create the programs so they'll fit into the environment, but Linux based operating systems are a wider field..I'm not sure if it ever works out having a "standard" that says how things ought to be done. I think things ought to be done so that they work best for what they're made of; why make a program less efficient, simple or something else just to make it "compatible" with some standard?

Not to mention the other questions; why RPM and not DEB or TGZ, why this, why that? Yeah, (ex-Windows-)software companies would love to see a three-character mark that states a product is able to install a program in the form preferred by the software company, but how does it help the products - operating systems in this case? And if we now started turning every app into an RPM (and install it with different package managers and tweaks onto different operating systems), and eventually most of the software were packaged as RPM, and then one day it was found out it's really a lame thing, would it be sensible? And if software was distributed as source code (.tar.gz or something) and RPM, why not distribute it in the other forms also? A whole lot of questions raise up on one matter only, so I don't think I'll go for the rest of the deal..

Slackware works fine, even if it's not stated as "LSB compliant", so what's the problem? Some company can't get money because they're lazy and don't want to package their supercool-and-patented-and-proprietary software into Slackware .tgz?
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:11 AM   #9
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
Another reason why Slack may not be classed as LSB compliant is because it uses BSD style init scripts. Most distros store scripts for their services and startup in /etc/init.d, but I think its /etc/rc.d for Slackware.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:12 AM   #10
ledow
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Slackware 13.0
Posts: 241

Rep: Reputation: 34
Simple answer:

It could easily be, it already is for most of the important bits, but why would you need it to be?

Slackware is a linux distro just like any other - it does some bits differently to the rest, otherwise it'd just be BlueHat or GreenHat - a carbon copy. It doesn't NEED to be LSB-compliant and there is very very little software that demands LSB compliance - and there are none can't be fixed. Plus, as others have pointed out, LSB isn't really a good standard anyway. Slackware gives a nod in it's direction with a symlink or two to comply with the LSB filesystem layout, but it doesn't have that much interest in LSB because, basically, neither does anyone else.

It's probably only the very-expensive, paid-for, closed-source programs that are run in large businesses that actually demand LSB-compliance, but none of them actually need it. And as time goes on, LSB will start to matter less and less.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:38 AM   #11
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddazz View Post
Another reason why Slack may not be classed as LSB compliant is because it uses BSD style init scripts. Most distros store scripts for their services and startup in /etc/init.d, but I think its /etc/rc.d for Slackware.
No. Slackware uses a SysV init, thanks.

http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org...srcinstrm.html

Last edited by evilDagmar; 11-19-2007 at 11:42 AM.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 11:56 AM   #12
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,749

Rep: Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461Reputation: 461
Yes, Slacware uses SysV init, but uses BSD-style init scripts- In the latest versions the initscripts package does install SysV-style init directories since some of the software included with Slackware requires some of those scripts including /etc/init.d/functions. Still the basic functionality and boot-time init scripts are *similar* to BSD init-style in that they do not have separate scripts which are run for each runlevel and most everything is located in /etc/rc.d and not in /etc/init.d.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 12:17 PM   #13
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:
The Slackware Philosophy
Since its first release in April of 1993, the Slackware Linux Project has aimed at producing the most "UNIX-like" Linux distribution out there. Slackware complies with the published Linux standards, such as the Linux File System Standard. We have always considered simplicity and stability paramount, and as a result Slackware has become one of the most popular, stable, and friendly distributions available.
source: http://www.slackware.com/info/

There you go. Also, I personally don't give a damn if it doesn't comply to the LSB standard in particular ... because I find it rather silly.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 12:54 PM   #14
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
No. Slackware uses a SysV init, thanks.

http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org...srcinstrm.html
The Slackware site says they use BSD style scripts.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 01:14 PM   #15
e.v.o
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware 12.0
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 0
wiki says that the LSB has some std. packages that every LSB distro must contain.
but where do i find a list of these packages???
 
  


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
Building LSB compatible application with LSB SDK - lsbappchk fails gkiagia Programming 0 01-12-2007 05:00 AM
FLV is compliant to bhushanv Linux - Software 1 08-23-2006 09:10 AM
LSB 3.0 released - Slackware compliance? Yalla-One Slackware 1 09-21-2005 07:34 PM
how a new distro is GPLed compliant? nazib Linux - General 1 03-01-2005 05:50 AM
Is this ansi-c compliant? xailer Programming 5 12-26-2003 08:49 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 PM.

Main Menu
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