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

Re: real LSB compliance

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:57:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I find this a bit frustrating because it is so one-sided.  It seems
> clear to me from reading the constitution that several solutions exist
> for Debian to participate in LSB that put more of the responsibility
> on Debian than on the LSB.  A developer could introduce a resolution
> appointing a group of people to represent Debian for LSB.  

Well, the Debian Way of supporting the LSB would be to have some
developer go off, create a lsb_1.0_i386.deb that includes any necessary
software, or depends on other packages that do (and a corresponding
lsb-dev_1.0_i386.deb for people who want to build lsb packages), upload
them, and basically be done. If LSB support turns out to be a good thing,
we can make it easy to get LSB support from the installer; if it turns
out to be pointless wankery, it can eventually get orphaned and removed.

Expecting all of Debian to just suddenly see some new (and completely
unimplemented!) proposal, and decide to support it wholeheartedly and
go around ripping up bits of the distribution and plugging in what the
LSB specifies is... well, a bit naive. Which isn't to say it doesn't
work quite well at distributions maintained by companies, simply that
Debian is completely different (and IMO better for those differences).

Personally, I think the 1.0 label is way premature, but OTOH it does
seem to have generated a lot of interest, which is no doubt a good thing.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgp2Kw5vuZSDd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: