Re: real LSB compliance
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 06:42:48PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Also, consider that we do not want to make LSB packages be forced into
> being a bag on the side of Debian or any other distribution. If a
> software author can get sufficiently better integration by packaging
> directly for Redhat than for LSB, then they may very well do so. If
> this happens a lot, we will have done our users a disservice by
> helping to make LSB a sufficiently unattractive option that software
> is not available for LSB.
this discussion has been about this to a large extent, the whole dont replace
If some given software/package/whatever complies with DFSG and a developer
wants to package it, it will be far better for debian and its users then
depending on some lsb package the origfinal author creates. After all it will
be a fully integrated deb package able to use all of the debian system, etc
How is it that if a package may be packaged in debian according to our
guidelines that it would be a disservice to package it and we should instead
just leave it as an lsb package? I dont see it.
For third party non free stuff, such as Oracle I can understand it, but not
for stuff some developer wants to package and maintain for debian.
Look Up In The Sky
Is it a bird? No
Is it a plane? No
Is it a small blue banana?