Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
Theodore> Finally, I want to underline again the fact that the
Theodore> discussions on this subject have been happening for over a
Theodore> year, and most of these issues (runlevels in particular)
Theodore> had been settled a long time ago.
Perhaps I am reading too much into perhaps unintentional
phraseology, but this is beginning to sound like something writ in
stone. I certainly hope I am wrong, for if this sentiment ``we
settled all this a long time ago, and since you were not there
comment, you lose'' actually prevails, then the LSB is dead before it
gets of the ground.
Theodore> Many other distributions (SuSE and Caldera in particular)
Theodore> had already started making changes to their distributions
Theodore> in preparation for LSB.
Theodore> Where were all of the Debian developers back then when we
Theodore> were actually discussing these issues? It was an open
Well, we were creating a distribution, neh? We also assumed
that the general developer body would be kept apprised of significant
developments.
Theodore> process, and you could have affected the course of the
Theodore> standard back then. (There have been a number of very good
Theodore> points that were raised in this thread; I just wish they
Theodore> were raised a year ago.)
I see. So the LSB is indeed written in stone? Too bad. I was
beginning to like some stuff.
Theodore> Where were all of the Debian developers when we started the
Theodore> one month review process before the final standardization
Theodore> of 1.0? We received a lot of comments and carefully
Theodore> considered all of them before putting out the 1.0 standard.
Theodore> Although it would have been much more convenient to have
Theodore> received these sorts of comments a year ago, it still would
Theodore> have been much easier for all concerned if we had received
Theodore> these comments a month ago, instead of now, after LSB 1.0
Theodore> written specification has been released.
I think you guys screwed up when it came to advertizing the
review process, as you are beginning to discover. However, I would
not be very hard on myself, after all, this is just the version
1.0. (yes, this is a trifle tongue in cheek, but the arrogance
implied in apportioning all the blame for not participating in the
review procerss to the people who did not deserves this a bit).
Theodore> Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, most folks
Theodore> refuse to actually pay attention to a standard until after
Theodore> it's finally released --- at which point they start
Theodore> kvetching. Well, if you don't like what happened with LSB
Theodore> 1.0, please help us with LSB 1.1! Volunteers are always
Theodore> appreciated.
You shall certainly get some volunteers, but only if things
are still fixable (anything written in stone does not sound very
enticing).
manoj
--
QOTD: "I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a
resistance."
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: