<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Dan,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your feedback.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a71bd89a0808081535l24e93542qa66a549287135614@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I just checked out
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/downloads/linux-application-checker">http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/downloads/linux-application-checker</a>
It's pretty cool. I tried it on Picasa, and it was
fun to watch. It didn't find any surprises, but it was
comforting watching it try.
However, it seems to be missing a few tricks:
1) Shouldn't it have LSB profiles in its output (e.g. "your app is not LSB 3.1
compliant because...")?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I have run Linux Application Checker on picasa-2.7.3736-15.i386.rpm and
have got the following Summary:<br>
<br>
<tt>Some compatibility problems detected<br>
</tt>
<ul>
<li><tt>There are 11 of 27 distributions that provide all the
required libraries and interfaces.</tt></li>
<li><tt>The Application uses 10 external libraries incompatible with
LSB 3.2.</tt></li>
<li><tt>The Application uses 7 external libraries without using
interfaces in those libraries. The Application would be more portable
if it is fixed to not use unneeded libraries.</tt></li>
</ul>
The second line presents the summary of LSB compliance of the
application under test and it contains a hyper link to the list of the
"10 external libraries incompatible with LSB 3.2". More details are
available at the "LSB Certification" tab.<br>
<br>
Do you mean to extend this information? Or may be to make its
representation more visible?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a71bd89a0808081535l24e93542qa66a549287135614@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2) it was delivered as a tarball rather than an LSB package.
While there's nothing wrong with tarballs, this
seems like an area where eating your own dogfood
might be appropriate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
We have the appropriate bunch of LSB packages as well. We discussed it
and decided to promote the tarball first of all because of developers
who are not allowed root access.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a71bd89a0808081535l24e93542qa66a549287135614@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3) One of these days it would be sweet if the Linux Foundation
had its own yum and apt repositories. The problem is
that it's hard to tell people how to access these
(see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/">http://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/</a> for
my try at something similar). I'm looking forward to
the day when PackageKit is on good terms with
Suse's One Click Install. (I know, it sounds impossible,
but a guy can hope.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
The Linux Foundation provides software repositories since LSB 3.1
Update 1.<br>
<br>
More details are available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/RepositoryInfo">http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/RepositoryInfo</a>, which, I guess, is
the wiki page Mats mentioned.<br>
<br>
It would be good if we update this information and publish at the new
LDN to make it more visible to end-users.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a71bd89a0808081535l24e93542qa66a549287135614@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">4) It's hard to find from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org">http://www.linuxfoundation.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
That is true.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Regards,<br>
Alexey Khoroshilov<br>
Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS<br>
</body>
</html>