Qt3 and LSB compliance

[Pau Garcia i Quiles]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Etienne Goyer
<etienne.goyer at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 11-03-02 03:12 PM, Till Kamppeter wrote:
>> But how is it working with commercial support customers who buy
>> LSB-based commercial software?
>
> We do not make any commitment regarding third-party software.
>
> In principle, from a commercial point of view, I would see value in
> officially standing behind the LSB by keeping it in main.  In practice,
> however, there really isn't much LSB-compliant software out there.
> Actually, I cannot think of any beside the print drivers Till mentioned
> earlier.  :/
>
> In the end, I am not the one making the call about the worthiness of LSB
> compliance.  This is just my personal opinion.

LSB compliance is especially valued by companies developing
closed-source software.

That's the main reason most people have not heard about applications
asking for LSB compliance.

The second reason being most closed-source applications, and even
open-source commercial applications, would only QA and offer explicit
support for RHEL and SLES.

Curiosity: I know a funny case of a large database company which uses
Ubuntu as their Linux development platform but offers commercial
support only for RHEL and SLES. We install that database on Ubuntu,
and when we report an issue, we have to say we are using SLES 10. We
have direct contact with developers, who know we run on Ubuntu, they
run on Ubuntu, and we all lie and say we run SLES 10. Thanks to them
abiding by LSB (and even further: they won't DT_NEEDED anything but
glibc, they dlopen every single dependency, and they have tens of
them), we have no problem running that proprietary database on Ubuntu.


-- 
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)