[arch-dev-public] Adding a "posix" metapackage

[Eli Schwartz]

On 1/3/20 10:48 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 23:35 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Posix is an old standard which fail to make a common ground to Unix systems.
> 
> If we think user needs meta packages to install their Arch, is the Linux
> Standard Base more relevant to us?

I would argue that POSIX is a standard which people actually care about,
and LSB is a standard which no one cares about.

POSIX defines minimally supported featuresets, LSB defines binary
compatibility ABIs. Also, requirements like "must be able to install
software in the rpm format" don't actually provide value IMO.

But at the end of the day, if someone wanted to work on LSB compliance
in Arch Linux, I'd be personally okay with that. I just won't work on it
myself.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20200103/26039d51/attachment.sig>