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

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA

Steve Langasek writes...

> 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?

Where does it say that? I just scanned that chapter and I can't find anything 
like that.

> 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.

In the LSB spec "implementors" can mean both runtime implementors and 
application implementors. So when it says that "applications" should us that 
init script naming it means applications seeking LSB compliance and not 
applications provided by the distro that aren't seeking LSB compliance.

If this could be made more clear in the spec point to what section confused 
you and maybe we can add something.

> 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.

Debian doesn't for the entire namespace minus things starting with 
"domainname-" and "lsb-". And I don't think we'd want to use those anyway, 
except "debian.org-" and "lsb-" things we'd register with LANANA.

Matt Taggart

Reply to: