Re: Linux Core Consortium
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 13:04 -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> If ISVs want "exactly the same", they are free to install a chroot
> environment containing the binaries they certify against and to supply
> a kernel that they expect their customers to use. That's the approach
> I've had to take when bundling third-party binaries built by people
> who were under the illusion that "exactly the same" was a reasonable
> thing to ask for. Once I got things working in my chroot, and
> automated the construction of the chroot, I switched back to the
> kernel I wanted to use; the ISV and I haven't troubled one another
> since.
Wishing the ISVs operated a different way doesn't really get us any
closer to a solution..
> If the LSB only attempts to certify things that haven't forked, then
> it's a no-op. Well, that's not quite fair; I have found it useful to
> bootstrap a porting effort using lsb-rpm. But for it to be a software
> operating environment and not just a software porting environment, it
> needs to have a non-trivial scope, which means an investment by both
> ISVs and distros.
That's precisely what we're trying to do. :-)
--
Ian Murdock
317-578-8882 (office)
http://www.progeny.com/
http://ianmurdock.com/
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may
act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." -T.E. Lawrence
Reply to: