Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't really see what resources you need. I can loan you a copy of "vi"
> if you really need it?
>
> Well, it's nice to see you've got such a thoroughly transparent process,
> there. Who's the "pending Specification Authority" ? Is it Stuart Anderson
> (the Specification Technical Lead), and if so, he's already agreed [2],
> hasn't he? How will I know when it's resolved? Why hasn't it already
> been resolved, and what, exactly, is holding it up?
Time is the answer to most of these questions, and despite enormous amounts
of caffine, I have not managed to add many hours to a day. Currently, I'm part
of the bottleneck for why you haven't seen any visible progress on this.
For the past couple of months, I've had considerable pressure from a non-LSB
obligation that has consumed most of my time. Unfortunately, it means that I
haven't had the opportunity to apply vi to the spec much. I've been making
changes in my head, but no one else can see that.
As you mention, I think we have concensus, and understand the path which was
followed to get the uid stuff in the spec. This covers the requirments I had
for making the change. Now it just remains to decide what the "standardeze"
words are for "Oops, we goofed".
There are several issues that are in my queue. This past week, I have been
able to spend a more appropriate amount of time on the LSB, and had been
working on a couple of issues that result in a large number of bugs against
the spec. The uid issue is in the queue, and will be handled soon.
I hate having to say this given the length of time this issue has been around,
but you continued patience on this is appreciated. It will be changed as has
been discussed, as soon as I finish the couple of bugs on which I have already
started.
Stuart
anderson@metrolink.com anderson@freestandards.org
Metro Link, Inc. Free Standards Group
Linux Standards Base
Reply to: