Re: real LSB compliance
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 tytso@mit.edu wrote:
>
> Finally, I want to underline again the fact that the discussions on
> this subject have been happening for over a year, and most of these
> issues (runlevels in particular) had been settled a long time ago.
> Many other distributions (SuSE and Caldera in particular) had already
> started making changes to their distributions in preparation for LSB.
>
> Where were all of the Debian developers back then when we were
> actually discussing these issues? It was an open process, and you
> could have affected the course of the standard back then. (There have
> been a number of very good points that were raised in this thread; I
> just wish they were raised a year ago.)
>
> Where were all of the Debian developers when we started the one month
> review process before the final standardization of 1.0? We received a
> lot of comments and carefully considered all of them before putting
> out the 1.0 standard. Although it would have been much more
> convenient to have received these sorts of comments a year ago, it
> still would have been much easier for all concerned if we had received
> these comments a month ago, instead of now, after LSB 1.0 written
> specification has been released.
>
> Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, most folks refuse to
> actually pay attention to a standard until after it's finally released
> --- at which point they start kvetching. Well, if you don't like what
> happened with LSB 1.0, please help us with LSB 1.1! Volunteers are
> always appreciated.
FUD
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: