Re: Linux Core Consortium
Bruce> Fortunately, flex isn't in the problem space. If you stick to what
Bruce> version of libc, etc., it'll make more sense.
Flex isn't in the problem space if we're talking core ABIs. But it
certainly is if we're talking core implementations, as binutils and
modutils both depend on it. Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on
a set of binaries without specifying the toolchain that's used to
reproduce them?
Bruce> Do you know of any other distribution that has taken the trouble to
Bruce> write down as much policy as Debian has? It's not clear that the others
Bruce> have anything to put against it.
Not having a policy is also a choice. For a variety of reasons, a
written policy about legal and technical issues can be a handicap to
the sort of calculated risk that many business decisions boil down to.
Debian has flamewars about license compatibility and degree of
dependency on non-free materials precisely because it has a policy and
tries to abide by it.
But again, you may not always get what you pay for, but you rarely
fail to pay for what you get. If all distros were as sensitive as
Debian is to questions of reproducibility from unencumbered source
code and build environments, then perhaps we wouldn't be debating the
need for "golden" binaries.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: