On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:37:12PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > Jeff Licquia writes... > > From there, Debian can make up its own mind what's important for it. > We're all in this boat together, isolating yourself and declaring the problem > to be someone else's doesn't help. Jeff, you're the main person working on > LSB in Debian, [...] Note that you guys had a pretty good opportunity for sarge to be LSB compliant, in the form of: (p) Linux Standard Base Packages must not conflict with requirements of the LSB, v1.3. (eg, if you provide a library specified in the LSB, you must be compatible with the LSB specification of that library) Basically, you should be LSB compatible. You can expect a bug report to be filed if you're not, and if you don't know how to fix the problem, you should email debian-lsb@lists.debian.org for assistance. It's up to you guys to talk to the RM team about when that "v1.3" should be bumped, and what to. (Obviously that's an RC bug if people are incompatible with the LSB -- you still have to make sure all the software the LSB requires is actually packaged) Getting LSB compliance updates into stable after release is pretty hard; we would've gotten woody r2 or so to be LSB 1.2 compliant if Joey were comfortable accepting fairly minor changes to glibc and others. Matt, sorry for ignoring your /msg's, I'll get back to you RSN, promise :) Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature