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


Robert W Current, Ph D <current@hel-inc.com> writes:

> I have been a UNIX user for over 6 years now.  I have followed the
> LSB since before there was a LSB.  I have seen it get tons of press,
> have great ideas, and fade slowly into the background.  I think it's
> time for a swift kick in the rear end!

Hi Rob.

Is that an offer to help?  There is now an LSB task list located at


The list is not finished yet, but between it and unfinished parts of
the spec and stuff that the test suite doesn't cover, there's enough
work to be done.  A small number of people are concentrating on that
work and we're working on increasing our manpower.

> Second, any issue of "software packaging" should NOT be standardized
> by the LSB.

It does need to be handled (at least the binary package format) by the
LSB because 3rd party application vendors need to have a way to
deliver their software to LSB-compliant systems.  For now, the format
is .rpm since everyone supports it.

> Third, although I believe .tgz, .deb, .rpm, and the like are something
> the LSB shouldn't endorse, I do feel that how these packaging systems
> interact with what is "a LSB Compliant System" must be addressed.  This
> can NOT be avoided.  THINGS MUST CHANGE! 
> Packaging systems must be free to develop on thier own, and do thier own
> thing.  BUT, most likely, all of them will have to be "adjusted" so that
> they fit within the scheme of what it is that the LSB is trying to
> address.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me.

> And, finally.... IT'S BROKE!  Yes, IT'S BROKE!  We MUST FIX IT.  No "if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it" stuff applies.  There is an absolute need
> to change some of the fundumental underlying structure of what "Linux"
> is...  "Linux" must be DEFINED!

You could also use the word "documented" instead of "defined".

Actually, I don't think you're disagreeing with our current approach
very much.  Have you looked at the draft specification?

Also, this list doesn't get much traffic.  It's mostly on lsb-spec,
our meetings, and biweekly LSB specification conference calls (see the
talks web page).


Reply to: