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

Sébastien Luttringer seblu at seblu.net
Sat Jan 4 02:47:17 UTC 2020

On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 11:11 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 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?
> > 
> I would argue that POSIX is a standard which people actually care about,
> and LSB is a standard which no one cares about.

I agree that few people are interested in LSB. I think it's barely the same for

Our scripts are not written POSIX compatible (i.e they rely on more tools than
the standard). Do you still know people writing POSIX compatible scripts
nowadays (students excluded)?
The GNU Operating System (our core rely on it) have disagreements with POSIX
and are de-facto non-POSIX (e.g df).
I'm not able to tell you something in Arch that rely on POSIX.2 (Shell and
What make you think people care about this standard?

I'm not opposed to add a posix metapackage. I'm just very reserved about its

One unfortunate consequence could be to have packages rely on it to make
dependencies shorter, and make us pull cups or cronie.


Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20200104/4d6e5b5c/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list