Re: man pages
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> 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 further discussion).
Just be aware that what you're talking about isn't "evolution". It would
be more accurately described as "revolution". The goal of the LSB is very
specific and (mostly) clearly defined.
However many people including yourself would like to use the LSB as a
vehicle for making progressive change in Linux distributions. This is not
an evolutional change, this is definitely revolutional. The LSB would be
switching from an effort to facilitate cross-distribution portability into
a steering body that dictates the course. Very different indeed.
Please be aware that when you (or other folks) ask for things like this
that it is contrary to what the current goals are, and generally won't be
warmly received.
Jeffrey.
o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts |
| watts@jayhawks.net o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer | "It's the same each time with progress. |
| Network Systems Management | First they ignore you, then they say |
| Sprint Communications | you're mad, then dangerous, then |
o----------------------------| there's a pause and then you can't |
| find anyone who disagrees with you." |
| -- Tony Benn (b. 1925) |
| British Labour politician |
o-----------------------------------------o
Reply to: