Re: man pages
Me <email@example.com> wrote:
> The following is all aiui; I'm not involved in the LSB.
> > The LSB's purpose is "to enable a uniform industry standard
> Yes, but I think you have the wrong interpretation of those words.
> The LSB's current, and by default permanent, mission, is creation of
> _Barely Enough_ of _Common Ground_ so that ISVs can create a
> single binary that installs and runs without fatal error on multiple
> distributions. And NOTHING MORE.
I understand that argument, and if that is the position of the LSB, than
so be it. I will accept that.
> Debating expansion of this mission right now would be highly
> inappropriate. It was chosen several years ago by those participating
> and making it happen, and they have yet to fully deliver on this limited
> mission (though they are apparently getting close).
However, I disagree on the point of not being allowed to change the
definition or to argue about it just because it has been worked on for
years. That's just not a good argument. I think it's important that
something like the LSB needs to evolve as it develops - if the issue of
man-pages has been discussed before and reason has given arguments that
they should not be made mandatory, then I would enjoy the read of that
discussion (after which I would shut up or bring the issue back for
If it hasn't, then now is as good a time as ever to debate it. But I
insist: "it's never been done like that" is not a good argument.