Re: LSB Status
* Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [011128 16:06]:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:14AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote:
> > It seems to me that a natural step would be to update the policy to
> > reflect the FHS 2.2 and add LSB 1.0. Is this already in progress?
>
> I'm not sure if there's any sort of "official" position on this, but
> mine is that the LSB isn't in a position to be supported yet, "1.0"
> version number or not. When there are some sample "foo.lsb" packages
> that can actually be installed on Red Hat systems (let alone all "LSB
> compliant" systems) it might be worth thinking about this.
Re: LSB 1.0.1-011119, I can appreciate your viewpoint. I am simply
curious to see what kind of policy targets are being considered for
3.+, how well the various parts of the LSB have been reviewed and how
close we already are to being compliant. I would like to see potential
pitfalls anticipated and addressed.
I am confident that items like init script status commands and runlevel
symlinks can be worked on since these are only extensions of current
policy. I am sure there will be wonderfully witty and articulate
debate. I haven't read the LSB in it's entirety yet. I realize this
is my next step to a clearer understanding. I don't think anybody
has any illusion that because the policy changes everything instantly
becomes compliant.
Let me pose this alternative question for discussion: will Debian
officially ignore the LSB in official policy? That seems to be where
we are presently which surprises me.
Why am I surprised? Debian has been hosting several of the mailing
lists since 1998 & Debian is listed on the linuxbase.org home page.
There are many intricated issues involved in moving toward complying
with such a large specification. No matter how dedicated the
developers, this will a good amount of time. It's hard for even a
commercial organization to comply who has more inherent structure.
Cheers,
--
-- Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org>
Reply to: