On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such
> > standards violations as bugs.
> Correct. Violating the LSB is not a bug.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's not simply a bug, it's a release
critical bug. The responsibility of finding a fix belongs to the -lsb
group, but the maintainer is still required to apply the fix in the
usual timely manner expected for RC bugs.
> Nor is violating the win32
> API. Neither of them are relevant; we ship Debian packages, not LSB
> packages or win32 programs,
We aim to ship an LSB compliant OS distribution; the LSB requirements for
those are different to the requirements for LSB apps for obvious reasons.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature