[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: new draft release announcement

On Apr 29, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Dan Chen <crimsun@email.unc.edu> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 08:10:34PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > > Isn't saying debian supports software developed for the LSB, very close
> > > to claiming compliance with the spec.  it seems confusing at least to
> > > me.
> > 
> > I don't think "supports" implies "complies with."
> "support" is an extremely vague word with many different meanings.
> There's certainly no way anyone could say with authority whether or
> not "supports" implies "complies with."
> Personally, from that sentence, I would infer that Debian does comply
> with the LSB spec.

Which it substantially does, subject to the relatively minor caveats
in /usr/share/doc/lsb/README.Debian.  Other points of noncompliance
may exist but are probably shared by other Linux distributions as most
of them are discrepencies between a common library (usually libc) and
the specification test suite.

Note that even though Debian's init scripts do not provide all of the
functionality specified in the LSB, since LSB-compliant applications
are not permitted to call init scripts other than their own (as they
are not defined in the specification) it really doesn't hurt anything.

However, the caveat is quite clearly spelled out in README.Debian:

The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way
of installing LSB packages on Debian woody on the ia32 architecture.
Its presence does not imply that I believe that Debian fully complies
with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a
statement that Debian is LSB-compliant.

Chris Lawrence <chris@lordsutch.com> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: