On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:35:48AM -0400, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> Where were all of the Debian developers back then when we were
> actually discussing these issues? It was an open process, and you
> could have affected the course of the standard back then. (There have
> been a number of very good points that were raised in this thread; I
> just wish they were raised a year ago.)
From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
To: lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:17:31 +1000
Message-ID: <19990404131731.A27783@azure.humbug.org.au>
http://lists.debian.org/lsb-spec-9904/msg00026.html
I got sick of following the LSB stuff when the lists were still full
of arguments about what the point of the LSB was, whether rpm should be
the package manager or not, and the discussion moved over to sourceforge
around a year ago.
Cheers,
aj
--
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:
pgpYkRnt8DMCT.pgp
Description: PGP signature