Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The LSB is a specification, and as such, should be provider neutral. But it contains many “hard‑coded” reference to GNU at many places. Ex. the ELF Linux's specific entries PT_GNU_STACK, PT_GNU_RELRO and al., or with some libraries like libgcc_s. How these explicit references to GNU in the LSB should be interpreted?

  • Is it there for historical reasons (like the MZ magic in one of the Windows executable formats)?
  • Is it there to designate GNU as a unique provider for some parts of conforming systems?
  • Is it there as an acknowledgement of some role played (currently or in the paste) without any particular mandate?

I would not have asked this questions, if the references did not appeared in a standard specification, I mean, the questions should be understood in this particular context.

share|improve this question
Provider neutral? No. rpm is part of LSB. – jordanm Apr 18 '13 at 4:29
@jordanm and although I know very little about this standard... there is more than one rpm provider... Suse RPMS are not 100% compat with RHELs. Standards are for interop, but usually an implementation or prefereably two exist before the standard does. – xenoterracide Nov 5 '13 at 8:13

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.