We discussed this at today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting.

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-11-08/epel.2023-11-08-21.00.html

We agreed to unpush this update from the testing repo for the time being. Once FESCo makes a decision in this matter, the EPEL Steering Committee will revisit this and decide if the package will be allowed in EPEL.

This was discussed at the last two FESCo meetings.

• https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-11-02/fesco.2023-11-02-17.00.html
• https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-11-09/fesco.2023-11-09-17.06.html

I believe every FESCo member present agreed that redhat-lsb should be retired, but several were against forcing it to be done. The ultimate decision was as follows:

AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0)

No changes have been made to redhat-lsb to comply with this decision yet. Once this has been completed, the EPEL Steering Committee will re-discuss this issue to decide if redhat-lsb is a good fit for EPEL or not.

a new proposal is in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-336dbb57e0

• I added the following description to package and all sub-packages:

This package is not compliance with LSB, because various components are missing from Fedora or EPEL, so compliance is not possible. Fedora or EPEL explicitly declines add support the missing components from LSB 5.0 or earlier because these components are very outdated and have been removed from the repositories and possibly replaced with new ones. This package tries its best to comply with the LSB. Hoping to be helpful and continue to support the LSB project and software that use it

• redhat-lsb (main package) now provides lsb_release, in future maybe we can remove the rest of sub-packages since LSB 5.0 is out of date

AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or earlier. Packagers will remove any
information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or > offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0)

The boolean logic here I don't understand , is enough modify "implementation of Linux Standard Base specification" with "Partial implementation of Linux Standard Base specification" ?
The package is indeed an attempt and the best effort of support LSB, so how we say that and "explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or earlier." at same time ?