Re: real LSB compliance
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 10:13:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> >>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
> Sam> First I suspect that it is only for rc.d links. Secondly,
> Sam> why are we supporting LSB if not for our users?
>
> Manoj> If the product is free software, we shall already have
> Manoj> decent, conforming packaging for it. Now, if you are
> Manoj> talking about non-free software, that can never actually be
> Manoj> part od Debian, well, then. How much effort do we really
> Manoj> want to spend here? (Were we not already discussing
> Manoj> throwing out non-free from our archive sites?)
>
> Sam> The assertion that we will have all free software packaged in Debian
> Sam> is ludicrous; we may have much of it packaged, and we should work to
> Sam> package any that we do not have , but there may exist LSB free
> Sam> software not in Debian. Particularly for fast-moving targets it may
> Sam> be better for our users to use LSB packages than native debs.
>
> I am afraid I am not that naive. The LSB has been specifically
> targ4etted to the ISV's (and the shakers and the movers behind it wo
> were at USENIX admitted as much). I am fully convinced that
> binary-only software shall be the bulk of the benficiaries of the
> LSB: just because free software can be packaged to it does not mean
> it shall be.
Well, as a counterexample, I have an awful lot of free software here
that probably would be packaged according to the LSB if the LSB had
been in better shape at our last release, and probably will be if we
consider the LSB ready and sufficiently adopted at the next release -
all of our cross development tools. We currently support six or more
disparate Linux hosts; the ability to use the same packages on all of
them would be a significant boon.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: