Re: [users] Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
On 03-Jul-01, 02:37 (CDT), Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> wrote:
> maybe you didn't hear the first time
>
> Who cares!
Maybe you didn't notice: You are not the sole arbiter of what Debian
does or does not choose to support.
> i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> require compromising our quility and policy. beyond that i hope to
> hell we ignore it.
Agreed. Or, if it's not too hard, keep the "compromising" parts in
lsb-strict.deb: those you need/want it can accept the compromise.
> id rather debian ignore part or all of the lsb then turn itself into
> one of those other distributions.
Agreed, again. But just because the LSB disagrees with our current
setup, and chose RPM over DEB as the package format doesn't make it
evil. No, we shouldn't change our standard to RPM, but we already
support installing rpms, and removing that capability as a response to
the LSB choice seems rather childish. (That's a general comment; I don't
think Ethan has proposed that we do so, although it seems like others
have.)
As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
installs is that big a compromise. Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't
going to mess with existing setups, but I personally would rather the
defaults were what was in the LSB: the benefit of having 4 identical
runlevels has so far escaped me.
The one thing I've heard so far that seems gratuitous is the separate
library loader.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: