On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 9:05 AM Stephen Smoogen <ssmoo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> > This is called "shooting the messenger". >> >> It is not. See my reply to Fabio. >> >> > LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires >> > Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a >> > nice listing. We are not going to bring back Python 2 or old PERL >> > modules to satisfy LSB. >> >> That is exactly the attitude I am complaining about! >> >> It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec, >> without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and >> make >> both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. >> That > > > 1. It is not clear that would actually be 'valid' for being LSB compliant. > The LSB was written to be very specific in the 'actual' software used. > Substitutes would need approval by the now defunct LSB committee. > 2. The packages in Fedora are put in there by individuals who are > interested in maintaining them. The only things I know of stopping you or > a group of individuals from packing up tauthon or the other 'dead' software > is just the sheer size of the work required. However, that is just the easy > stuff. The perl changes also require similar locked older versions of perl > and module trees so every perl script would also need to now be changed to > refer to specific versions (one being the perl5 approved by LSB and the > other not). > > In the end, the real work needed is getting LSB 'going' again. The last > version was over 10 years old and based on what the state of the 'OS' was > in 2012 (it takes time to standardize so even with the last version being > from 2015, it is going to aim at what is generally available in 2012). It > needs a 'reboot' which either meets what is the state of things are in say > 2019 or newer. Or interested people can make an OS which will stick to > LSB-5.0 forever. > I question whether any of that is actually needed. Evidence from the past decade seems to show we get by just fine without it. I think it's better to just let LSB fade gracefully into the night. josh
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
