Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
Sam> I find this a bit frustrating because it is so one-sided. It seems
Sam> clear to me from reading the constitution that several solutions exist
Sam> for Debian to participate in LSB that put more of the responsibility
Sam> on Debian than on the LSB.
IFF we so decide.
Sam> A developer could introduce a resolution appointing a group of
Sam> people to represent Debian for LSB.
This is not as good a solution as engaging the whole group by
gating proposal on the lsb lists to -devel and -policy. That way it
would be far more likely that the project stands by the decisions --
or that the LSB knows about sticking points early. We would need
people to move discussions to the Debian lists, and feed back
comments to the lsb lists.
Sam> The technical committee could decide to get involved, possibly after
Sam> someone formally asked them to help. It's fairly clear from 6.1 that
Sam> this is within their scope.
Only if the mandate is given to the tech ctte from the larger
body of developers. The tech ctte should never just get up and impose
such sweeping changes on the developer body, no matter whether the
constitution says they can do so. The technical committee should be
involved only as a last resort.
Sam> I'm not actually sure these would be good ideas. I think though that
Sam> those within Debian who think the LSB would be a good idea should
Sam> consider these and other options.
I suppose so. If you are so set on this, perhaps you should
pursue this (not that you need any permissions from me or anyone
else, for that matter).
Sam> Participation in appropriate standards organizations is an
Sam> important part of a technical group and Debian needs to find a
Sam> way of accomplishing this.
I realize you are enthusiastic about this, but your opinion is
not the only one held by people in the project. Some would say it is
a marketing scheme thinly disguised as a standards process (indeed,
the FHS seemed to be the technical version of this).
I am also not convinced that the LSB process shall actually
help Debian in particular: In reality, third party software shall
still be tested on the most popular Linux platform, and would work
best there. Alien does not guarantee that any package work with
policy, nor that it would be integrated perfectly; hence packages
probably shall not work as well on Debian as the platform they were
targetted for. The result would be that the reputation of Debian
shall be tarnished; and people would tend not to ivestigate the cause
for sub par performance (why should they care?).
So pardon me for not jumping in enthusiastically with both
feet.
Sam> It can't be one sided; we cannot expect the standards
Sam> organization to completely change their process to meet our
Sam> needs--especially when the process is already fairly open, but
Sam> the relationship will not work if they are not willing to work
Sam> some to meet our needs. What I'm seeing from Manoj and many
Sam> other developers is a presumption that it is entirely LSB's job
Sam> to get Debian involved.
You should also realize that Debian is also not going to
change its ways and bend over backwards either. We are not a
corporate entity, where decisions flow down from a top executive, we
are not even of one common mind. Fail to understand that, and you
fail to understand Debian -- and have little chance of successfully
herding this litter of cats.
Now, we can try and see what we can work out -- but berating
Debian developers is not likely to be very productive.
Sam> It's not clear to me that LSB needs debian to be a generally respected
Sam> standard.
May be. May be not. It would more clearly brand the LSB as a
commercial consortium compromise, but that is merely my opinion.
Sam> If LSB ends up being successful as a standard without Debian's
Sam> participation or with reduced-effectiveness participation, then
Sam> Debian will likely be significantly hurt by not finding a way to
Sam> be involved.
A number of people believe Debian has already been
marginalized. I even have heard tell of forking the LSB. *shrug*. I
hope not.
This is getting o where. I suggest we give LSB the same
importance we have given the FHS. And I have the same reservations
about LSB that I have about the FHS. I think we should try to be as
compatible to the FHS and LSB as we can, and work withing the
processes that we have for getting things done.
manoj
--
Somehow I reached excess without ever noticing when I was passing
through satisfaction. Ashleigh Brilliant
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: