Re: LSB 3.0 and who's doing what?
Matt Taggart wrote:
>>Also is Debian interested in skipping LSB 2.0 compliance and moving
>>straight to LSB 3.0?
> I don't think so because sarge can't be 3.0 compliant (glibc isn't new enough
> among other things) so I think 2.0 for sarge and 3.0+ for etch.
Have you seen this?
In other words, we're working on a way to make sarge LSB 3.0 compliant
without having to introduce an updated libc (and break compatibility).
"A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about
telephones." --Douglas Adams