Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Steven" == Steven Hanley <email@example.com> writes:
>> Of course the LSB project may decide this is too onerous a
>> task, and then we are left with the status Quo.
Steven> this really is the wrong attitude I think.
I see. I guess this is going to give me an incentive to change
my wrong headed ways.
Steven> it is not a case of does LSB (and who is LSB anyway, it seems
Steven> the same argument could almost be applied to LSB as an entity
Steven> as to debian as an entity) want debian to be involved. The
Steven> question is does the debian project want to be involved iwth
Steven> LSB, and if so people participating in the debian project
Steven> must actively take part in the LSB process on the LSB lists
Steven> and such.
As a project, we have not yet made that determination. If
historical precedence applies (as with the FHS), the project is
likely to decide that we would recommend going with the LSB, perhaps
Steven> The onus is not on people participating in LSB to come onto
Steven> the debian lists and attempt to get us to take notice of them
Steven> and talk with them. The onus is on debian people to get onto
Steven> the LSB lists and participate there.
Andf this is the right attitude? I suspect that the LSB folks
are not as one sided as you are making them out to be (and this is
really a dissservice to them). If we cannot meet halfway, then this
effort is doomed. And I wish this discussion on the Debian lists had
been started before the review process, and not after. However, that
is spilt milk, and we can use this opportunity to engage Debian into
the LSB in the future -- not piecemeal, or as individuals, but by
leveraging the prodcesses that Debian already uses to make
Steven> If debian users are interested in getting Debian to be LSB
Steven> conformant and in making the LSB sensible, they must take
Steven> part in LSB. This is up to the individaul users and
Steven> developers of debian on the whole, it is irrelevant if the
Steven> DPL or someone similar (members of hte CABAL through some
Steven> assumed alias.... :) say debian must be LSB conformant as
Steven> that wont force developers and users to participate in LSB
Steven> or LSB to participate in debian, only people who want it
Steven> will make the effort. So do you want it?
Well, we have demonstrated that so far we are not -- since
participation in the effort has been minimal, and patchy; and little
information has flowed through to the Debian lists so far.
However, I reject your thesis that the only way Debian can
participate is as individuals -- I think we can get the buy-in of the
project by carrying out a discussion (perhaps in parallel) on the
debian lists, and let _all_ developers participate. (I suspect that
the lsb list may be overwhelmed if a sizeable chunk of the 800+
debian developers jumped in on the lsb lists and hijacked discussion
in our own inimitable way).
"IBM uses what I like to call the 'hole-in-the-ground technique' to
destroy the competition..... IBM digs a big HOLE in the ground and
covers it with leaves. It then puts a big POT OF GOLD nearby. Then it
gives the call, 'Hey, look at all this gold, get over here fast.' As
soon as the competitor approaches the pot, he falls into the pit"
John C. Dvorak
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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