Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Christopher" == Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@samba.org> writes:
Christopher> Anthony Towns writes:
>>
>> 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.
Christopher> Much like FHS compliance (which is part of the LSB but
Christopher> Debian has been heading towards anyway) some parts are
Christopher> going to need at the very least the cooperation of
Christopher> maintainers of other packages.
Indeed. And parts may require policy changes; and we need to
go through the process. Perhaps we need to send out a feeler in the
policy list _before_ things are laid out in stone, so the technical
objections can be answered, or the proposal modified, before the
fact.
>> Expecting all of Debian to just suddenly see some new (and completely
>> unimplemented!) proposal, and decide to support it wholeheartedly and
Christopher> Although there are a few new bits, actually the vast
Christopher> majority of the specification has already been
Christopher> implemented in more than one distribution. I think
Christopher> we'll see free implementations of all of the rest
Christopher> available from various sources within a few months.
I guess we shall be better able to judge where we stand with
respect to the proposal then.
manoj
--
If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the
other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the
other loses is a fraud. Dagny Taggart, "Atlas Shrugged"
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: