[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB?

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > Reasonable objection notwithstanding, I intend to write a letter to those
> > responsible for the LSB to attempt to raise the issues we have with their
> > current proposal.  I would appreciate discussion on these issues in other
> > parts of this thread.
> If you're interested in the LSB, you should join the LSB mailing list and
> offer to help.

Last I heard the LSB list was closed to the general public, though
archives were available.  Is this still the case?  If the LSB project now
welcomes "outsiders" to work with the project, great.  Otherwise I'm
concerned doing that would be in vain.

> "writing a letter to those responsible" is _very_ likely to be useless
> considering this lsb-fhs is a very first snapshot and that most problems
> with it reported on debian-devel have already been reported on the LSB
> mailing-list.

As I've said, last I heard this list was not available to the public.

> > I encourage those who have a significant opinion not yet voiced in the
> > LSB thread found on debian-devel to write them down either as part of
> > the thread or directly to me to aid in the drafting of this letter.
> Please just don't do that.
> Whining on debian-devel/Freshmeat/Slashdot will _not_ help. Joining the
> LSB-test mailing-list and offer to help is a much better thing to do.

That's not what I intended to do.  I _WAS_ intending to draft a letter
based on what we think as a group and send it to -private for peer review
and figuring out who does what next.  I wouldn't want to publish the
letter on -devel as some non-developers would read the draft as a final
letter to the LSB people and I want some peer review before anything is
read as "official" from Debian.

The reaction to Ian's original dfsg2 proposal (which IMO was right to
send to -devel) from those outside Debian who heard only rumors
indirectly or read what they wanted into the proposal and went around
bashing Debian for adopting this new dfsg indicates to me there is at
least some reason for a letter which in the draft stages and is intended
to be reviewed by developers first to be handled in this way.  To those
who went on rumor or read what they wanted into a proposal without
reading the attached threads, consider yourselves flamed and read before
you comment in the future.  =p  (this is of course not directed at you
personally Vincent..)

"I'm working in the dark here."  "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
                               -- Earth: Final Conflict

Reply to: