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

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA



On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:21:45PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:

> > Note that the reason it's not official is that the folks who're working on
> > LSB support have declined to respond to repeated requests from the RM team
> > about what that involves [0].

> Yeah we suck. BTW - Why wasn't this sub-thread cc'd to debian-lsb? It is now.

> I propose that our etch goal be LSB 3.x. There are still some issues to fix 
> but we're as close to implementing 3.0 as we are any other version. There's a 
> 3.1 in plan for later this year, it mostly bug fixes and other stuff that 
> shouldn't affect our compliance so we should be able to target it.

Did you happen to see the comments about getting a sane option for init
script handling into the LSB, so that we don't get stuck having to argue
with LANANA at some later date?:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00224.html

> > I think it's pretty telling that in spite of their PR position on staying
> > 100% Debian and contributing all enhancements to Debian, that Progeny's
> > working on making their product support LSB 3.0, while leaving Debian
> > to stick with LSB 1.3 due to lack of interest.

> The DCC LSB 3.0 compliance is being implemented using the "LSB linker 
> hack"(tm). Since the LSB uses it's own linker, it is possible to deliver a 
> custom ld-lsb.so.# that uses compliant system libs where possible and then 
> redirects certain things to alternative libs where the system lib isn't 
> compliant.

> It's not clear if such an approach would be appropriate for a sarge point 
> release. I *think* it would be OK as it doesn't change any existing system 
> ABI. About the only objection I can think of is that it would require changing 
> the lsb package in order to add in the new linker hack. That would change 
> existing behavior, but since it's changing it to fix compliance I think that 
> could be considered a critical bug fix worthy for a stable update. What do you 
> think?

Er, surely it's a much larger change than just adding the new linker hack --
it also requires adding in forked copies of several libraries.  It's
ultimately Joey's call, but I think it would be far preferable to try to fix
these lapses in the core libs instead of shipping two copies of libc and
libpam with sarge r1.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: