On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:49:03AM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote:
> Also, changing bin=1 not to be required is a *strong* recommendation. It
> would be nice if someone could do a getpwnam and getuid search to look for
> code that requires bin=1.
Trivially, there is no code currently in Debian that requires bin=1. And
that's a _lot_ of code right there.
> We can change the spec where it makes sense, but for the right reason, not
> just the sweaky wheel. :-)
*snort*. You have had seven (or is it eight now?) months to come up with a
reason for keeping the spec as it is now. You _haven't_. Why should it be
changed? "To have Debian support the LSB". What better reason do you want?
If this isn't one of the foremost goals of the LSB, then it needs to be
forked so we can have a real standard that actually helps ISVs distribute
software that works on *all* Linux distributions.
> We will submit these as bugs, then review them with a more structured process.
You've already had a bug submitted in the pre-1.1 review process
(#496592). The "structured" response was "oh, let's defer it forever
and hope it's forgotten about". You've already had all the further
investigation you need: it's completely unacceptable to Debian to leave
it this way, and no one else gives a damn what it is.
Frankly, I don't believe that you're still wasting our time arguing
about this completely trivial matter.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgp4ujjyop8m_.pgp
Description: PGP signature