Editing Linux Standard Base (section)

==Reception==
While LSB was a standard and without a competitor, it was followed only by few [[Linux distribution]]s. For instance, only 21 distribution releases (versions) were certified for LSB version 4.0, notably [[Red Flag Linux]] Desktop 6.0, [[Red Hat Enterprise Linux]] 6.0, [[SUSE Linux Enterprise]] 11, and [[Ubuntu version history#0904|Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope)]];<ref>[https://archive.today/20120804111738/https://www.linuxbase.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb Certified Products Product Directory]  on linuxbase.org (2015-01-12)</ref> even fewer were certified for version 4.1.

The LSB was criticized<ref>{{cite web | url = http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=271662#44 | title = bugs.debian.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/blog-entry/standards-and-conversations-part-1 | title = linuxfoundation.org }}{{Dead link|date=February 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=34818 | title = openacs.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.osnews.com/permalink?296712 | title = osnews.com}}</ref> for not taking input from projects, most notably the [[Debian]] project, outside the sphere of its member companies.

===Choice of the RPM package format===
LSB specified that software packages should either be delivered as an LSB-compliant installer,<ref>{{cite web | url = http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html#SWINSTALL-INTRO | title = Chapter 22. Software Installation 22.1. Introduction | work = Linux Standard Base Core Specification 3.1 | year = 2005}}</ref> or (preferably) be delivered in a restricted form of the [[RPM Package Manager]] format.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgscripts.html | title = Chapter 22. Software Installation 22.3. Package Script Restrictions | work = Linux Standard Base Core Specification 3.1 | year = 2005}}</ref>

This choice of package format precluded the use of other existing package formats not compatible with RPM. To address this, the standard did not dictate which package format the 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.

===Limitations on Debian===
Debian included optional support for LSB early on, at version 1.1 in "woody" (3.0; July 19, 2002), 2.0 in "sarge" (3.1; June 6, 2005), 3.1 in "etch" (4.0; April 8, 2007), 3.2 in "lenny" (5.0; February 14, 2009) and 4.1 in "wheezy" (7; May 4, 2013). To use foreign LSB-compliant RPM packages, the [[end-user]] needs to use Debian's [[Alien (file converter)|Alien]] program to transform them into the native package format and then install them.

The LSB-specified RPM format had a restricted subset of RPM features—to block usage of RPM features that would be untranslatable to .deb with Alien or other package conversion programs, and vice versa, as each format has capabilities the other lacks. In practice, not all Linux binary packages were necessarily LSB-compliant, so while most could be converted between .rpm and .deb, this operation was restricted to a subset of packages.

By using Alien, Debian was LSB-compatible for all intents and purposes, but according to the description of their <code>lsb</code> package,<ref name="debian-lsb-package">{{cite web | url = http://packages.debian.org/stable/lsb | title = Debian -- Details of package lsb in lenny (stable) -- Linux Standard Base 3.2 support package | publisher = [[Debian Project]] | date = 2008-08-18 | access-date = 2010-04-26}}</ref> the presence of the package "does not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is LSB-compliant."<ref name="debian-lsb-package"/>

Debian strived to comply with the LSB, but with many limitations.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLsb | title = Debian LSB | publisher = [[Debian Project]] | access-date = 2010-04-26}}</ref> However, this effort ceased around July 2015 due to lack of interest and workforce inside the project.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/2015/07/msg00000.html | title = Debian LSB ML discussion | publisher = [[Debian Project]] | access-date = 2015-09-12}}</ref> In September 2015, the Debian project confirmed that while support for [[Filesystem Hierarchy Standard]] (FHS) would continue, support for LSB had been dropped.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lwn.net/Articles/658809/|title=Debian dropping the Linux Standard Base|work=[[LWN.net]]}}</ref> Ubuntu followed Debian in November 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/9.20150917ubuntu1|title=lsb 9.20150917ubuntu1 source package in Ubuntu|date=November 19, 2015 }}</ref>

===Quality of compliance test suites===
Additionally, the compliance test suites were criticized for being buggy and incomplete—most notably, in 2005 [[Ulrich Drepper]] criticized the LSB for poorly written tests which can cause incompatibility between LSB-certified distributions when some implement incorrect behavior to make buggy tests work, while others apply for and receive waivers from complying with the tests.<ref name="drepper-2005">{{cite web | url = http://udrepper.livejournal.com/8511.html | title = Do you still think the LSB has some value? | author = Drepper, Ulrich | date = 2005-09-17 | access-date = 2010-04-26}}</ref> He also denounced a lack of application testing, pointing out that testing only distributions can never solve the problem of applications relying on implementation-defined behavior.<ref name="drepper-2005"/>

For the vendors considering LSB certifications in their portability efforts, the [[Linux Foundation]] sponsored a tool that analyzed and provided guidance on symbols and libraries that go beyond the LSB.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/all-about-linux-application-checker | title = All About the Linux Application Checker | publisher = [[Linux Foundation]] | year = 2008 | access-date = 2010-04-26}}</ref>