On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 06:16, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:41:24AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2003.07.16.2335 +0200]: > > > Er, no, the .rpm -> .deb direction is distinctly useful, not to mention > > > required for LSB compliance ... > > > > ... which Debian has achieved since when? > > We're not *that* far off. I think nobody has bothered to jump through > the last few requisite hoops, is all. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk] The impression I've gotten from various sources is finding someone willing to sponsor the cost of validating compliance is the bulk of what is left - the balance being individual packages not on top of the LSB issues - possibly needing some bugs to be filed to coax the compliance (or requiring LSB compliance of anything to be released as part of some future Debian release of Linux, and pray that it doesn't break anything for the Hurd or a *BSD.) My own observations is that the work has proceeded quite smoothly compared to any large scale reorganisation I've been involved with, and my gratitude to all that accomplished these miracles. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part