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

Re: LSB version for etch

Andreas Barth writes...

> I think we should start to discuss which LSB version we want to have as
> basis for etch soon.

I don't know of any reason why it can't be LSB 3.0 (spec release this week). 
It does require a newer glibc than sarge and some of the X tests might require 
Xorg to pass, but those are both goals for etch right? I'll be running the 3.0 
tests on etch soon.

> about LSB, you can of course lead that discussion if you want. In any
> case, we would be thankful for your input on this matter, especially on
> a list of differences between LSB 1.3 (which is still the standard in
> Debian), and the best-match for etch in your opinion.

I think we might even been 2.0 compliant in sarge, but we're still testing 

> Feel free to start a public discussion by posting these information
> directly to debian-devel, or to hand them over to the release team or to
> me, so that we can start a public discussion, or in anything else as you
> consider it fit.

Ok, good idea, I'll bring the subject up on debian-lsb and maybe send a 
pointer or summary to debian-devel for those not on debian-lsb.

> If there is anything else from your side on that matter, please don't
> hesitate to tell us.

How do you feel about multi-arch?

How do you feel about support for alternate (ie non-sysv) init systems?


Matt Taggart

Reply to: