LSB 3 compliance



Make dapper compliant to the LSB v3 (or v3.1)


Many smaller vendors may prefer to certify against LSB rather than seeking certification against Ubuntu directly. The LSB provides an illusion of binary compatability between vendors.

However, the LSB has several flaws. Specifically:

  1. There are a large number of errata in the testsuite. We have grave concerns about the level of testing it received before being published.
  2. There does not appear to be any recertification mechanism. If people have certified against the faulty testsuite, it doesn't appear that they are required to recertify against the corrected testsuite.
  3. Upstream GNU Maintainers (coreutils, glibc, and gcc) are not working with LSB to define it. Instead, LSB is reflective of a particular collection of packages, so LSB is always playing catchup to these packages.

Casual testing of Breezy showed that while we had one severe problem in the interpreter, all of our library failures were covered by test errata.

Given these concerns, in the absence of a commercial imperative we should not pursue LSB certification.

Scope and Use Cases

  • Wile E. Coyote has purchased some Linux software from ACME Co. and would like it to run on Ubuntu. ACME Co. is a company that makes roadrunner traps and has only recent entered the Linux market. In order to avoid certifying against 467 distribution (source:, they chose to certify against the LSB.

Packages Affected

  • glibc, g++, lsb, coreutils, alien, rpm, ncurses.

UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/LSB3 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:17:05 by localhost)