|
|
|
|
|
|
by ruediger
5234 days ago
|
|
|
That lsb_release is "an optional package in many distributions" is only a minor complain: > There's already the lsb_release tool for this, why don't you just use that? Well, it's a very strange interface: a shell script you have to invoke (and hence spawn asynchronously from your C code), and it's not written to be extensible. It's an optional package in many distributions, and nothing we'd be happy to invoke as part of early boot in order to show a welcome message. (In times with sub-second userspace boot times we really don't want to invoke a huge shell script for a triviality like showing the welcome message). The lsb_release tool to us appears to be an attempt of abstracting distribution checks, where standardization of distribution checks is needed. It's simply a badly designed interface. In our opinion, it has its use as an interface to determine the LSB version itself, but not for checking the distribution or version. And I guess distributions are far more reluctant to install a shell script than adding a file to /etc |
|
|
If only Linux packaging system had some kind of dependency system. That way systemd and other LSB needing packages could require lsb. You could even have some kind of automated packaging tool, or perhaps modify yellowdog updater, to fetch those dependencies automatically.