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

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:31:05AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > 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

> Yes, I did.

> As you pointed out, we make no claims that our packages providing init scripts 
> are LSB compliant. While we do still share the namespace in that directory and 
> collisions are possible, it is generally understood that the LSB runtime 
> implementor (read: us) owns the majority of that namespace and that if 3rd 
> party providers want to avoid collisions they will use either the provider DNS 
> method ("foo.com-bar") or register an lsb based name with LANANA ("lsb-foo").

Right, so if this is "generally understood", why does the text of the LSB
standard read the exact opposite, telling implementors that they should
register all of their init script names with LANANA?  That makes me very
uncomfortable; I really think the text needs to be updated to reflect the
position that "implementors may have arbitrarily-named init scripts", and
specify a limited namespace that is reserved for LSB packages that
implementors aren't allowed to touch.

> For example:
> * Debian delivers the apache web server with an init script named "apache"
> * the Apache project ships an LSB package of their web server, they would 
> probably register "lsb-apache" with LANANA or if they didn't want to go to the 
> hassle use "apache.org-apache".
> * a 3rd party developer wants to provide a custom version of apache as part of 
> their product, they would use "foo.com-apache"

> All 3 could coexist.

Yes, there's just no guarantee right now that this is how creators of LSB
packages will do things -- well, for apache there is because this is a
LANANA-registered init script name, but what about new packages, or packages
with new init/cron scripts, which aren't grandfathered in by LANANA?  Debian
packages shouldn't have to compete with the LSB for its own namespace.

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: