As explained in bug 19684 comment 14 and bug 19684 comment 16, I suggest to drop LSB packages entirely, except lsb_release which can stay (see bug 19684 comment 18). The reason is that per https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2023-February/008278.html, "the LSB project is essentially abandoned". Also, per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118596#c1, Fedora is not willing to waste energy on LSB 5.0 port either. Debian and Ubuntu also dropped support for LSB: https://lwn.net/Articles/658809/ https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/9.20150917ubuntu1 The changelog mentions: "Drop all the LSB compatibility packages besides lsb-release and lsb-base". And the lsb-base description mentions: "This is an empty package; it's needed only because of Provides: not being supported in debootstrap. It can be safely removed.". So it's basically an empty package. If Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu all dropped support for LSB, I see no point for Mageia to still support it. If you agree with this proposal, then bug 19684 could be closed as WONTFIX.
Blocks: (none) => 33053
Thank you for this well documanted case for dropping LSB. It has been mooted for dropping for ages. Devs need to decide: via the mailList? If agreed to, please add it to Bug 32127 "[TRACKER] Packages that need to be obsoleted for Mageia 10 release".
Source RPM: (none) => lsb-4.1-25.mga9.src.rpmAssignee: bugsquad => pkg-bugs
@Martin Do Mageia's tools uses lsb? There is no packages requirement for it, for what I found. lsb-release is another package I did not find lsb-base
CC: (none) => mageia, yvesbrungard
(In reply to papoteur from comment #2) > Do Mageia's tools uses lsb? Not as far as I know. LSB is one of the package groups presented by the installer, but that's determined by the compssUsers.pl and rpmsrate.raw files in the meta-task package, not by anything in drakx.
Thanks Martin. Thus I have removed LSB from compssUsers.pl and rpmsrate.raw in the files in package meta-task on SVN repository. I think lsb is ready for removing. Incidentally, why are these files not in git repository?
(In reply to papoteur from comment #4) > Incidentally, why are these files not in git repository? Because the migration to git was never completed. And it would be a lot more work to tag a new version in git, create and upload a tarball into the binrepo, and then make a new package release, just to add or remove a package from rpmsrate.
What about glibc_lsb ? Provides ld-lsb* dynamic loader links for LSB compliance
LSB removed, thus closing.
Resolution: (none) => FIXEDStatus: NEW => RESOLVED