9383 2016-04-04 20:10:35 +0000 Move to LSB 5 2016-08-15 14:54:49 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core core 2.1 All Multiple RESOLVED FIXED Medium+ enhancement 2.2 M3 8044 1 ross.burton akuster akuster alex.kanavin alexandru.c.georgescu bill.randle bluelightning meta.mr.watcher meta.watcher richard.purdie francisco.j.pedraza.gonzalez --- --- Yes (doc changes required) oldest_to_newest 60753 0 ross.burton 2016-04-04 20:10:35 +0000 For 2.2 we should review the LSB 5 compliance and ideally move to version 5. This includes dropping Qt3. 63697 1 akuster 2016-07-07 00:23:25 +0000 Maybe it makes sense to remove lsb from OE and move it to its own layer. 63831 2 alex.kanavin 2016-07-12 11:19:05 +0000 Here are the release notes for LSB5: https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/ReleaseNotes50 They have removed Qt3 (and almost sorta apologize for it, because it breaks the all-important backwards compatibility!). They have also added mandatory requirements for SANE (yes, the flatbed scanner framework), libncursesw, libtiff, libxslt. A bunch of other things have been updated: - Many GTK+ library dependencies have been updated to 2.32, and the support needed for GTK+/GDK 3.0 is available, although resident in the trial use module in this release. - Cairo has been updated to 1.30. - OpenGL has been updated to the 2.1 API. - The XCB API for X11 has been added. Then we'd also need to check the spec for .so versions and verify that they match against what oe-core provides, and also update lsb's utilities and test scripts and other things. Meanwhile, Debian and Ubuntu have abandoned LSB support entirely about 9 months ago: https://lwn.net/Articles/658809/ Choice quote: "The crux of the issue is, I think, whether this whole game is worth the work: I am yet to hear about software distribution happening through LSB packages. There are only _8_ applications by 6 companies on the LSB certified applications list, of which only one is against LSB >= 4. " I don't know for certain if creating a separate layer is technically feasible, but even that work should happen only if someone will continue to maintain that layer. Otherwise, let's just remove lsb bits for good. 63837 3 akuster 2016-07-12 13:51:35 +0000 Alaxander, Thanks for the information. LSB is one of the items on a check list for customers. MV is has to be LSB compliant. LSB is also a requirement for CGL, (lsb 3 IIRC). CGL is also an item on a check list. Just like Yocto compatibility is an item on a check list. The number of companies needing it are small IMHO. Having LSB in a separate layer may be a good fit for this addressing LSB 5. MV will certainly need LSB for the forcible future so I don't mind maintaining that layer. 63838 4 alex.kanavin 2016-07-12 14:30:06 +0000 To be honest, you should seriously challenge that check list with your customers. Is it a real requirement that gets utilized in their production work, or is it merely a very old item on the list that no one remembers the reasons for why it's there and so isn't able to take it off the list? 63839 5 akuster 2016-07-12 14:40:13 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > To be honest, you should seriously challenge that check list with your > customers. > it does not matter, it somewhat Marketing/Sales driven. LSB CGL Yocto Windriver X X X Enea X X X MV X Mentor X X X Ok, we can drop MV from our short list. > Is it a real requirement that gets utilized in their production work, Some do, some don't. or is > it merely a very old item on the list that no one remembers the reasons for > why it's there and so isn't able to take it off the list? Hard to say. 63840 6 akuster 2016-07-12 14:43:23 +0000 re-assigning to self per IRC. 64446 7 ross.burton 2016-07-25 21:57:51 +0000 WR just sent a patch to "sort of" move to LSB5. 65028 8 bill.randle 2016-08-10 17:54:30 +0000 Ross, can this be resolved as fixed now, so I can resolve #8044? 65192 9 ross.burton 2016-08-15 14:54:49 +0000 Effectively fixed with oe-core 89771f2. Compliance is not 100% and thanks to more dependencies in v5, worse than it was with v4.