Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You know, if no one can think of the reason in the months since this
> was first brought up in response to the "1.0" spec release, it quite
> simply can't have been a remotely good one.
The words in question were written well over a year ago, which is why it
is hard to recall the details.
> It's already evident that
> absolutely *none* of the stake holders in the LSB have any particular
> interest in keeping it, and a number of important stakeholders (Debian,
> you know, the second or third most popular Linux distribution worldwide,
Yes, I am quite familiar with Debian as I use it in several places.
> and everyone who wants their LSB compliant packages to run on Debian; not
> to mention Solaris ("Sun's implementation of Linux", if you'll recall))
> have a strong desire to have it removed.
I don't mind removing it, but I do mind making random, uncontrolled changes
to a document that is supposed to be stable and "controlled". My point in this
is that we need to follow a proper process in making changes like this.
> Preventing divergence is not the LSB's charter.
Actually, it is one of the original problems that cuased the LSB to be formed
nearly 4 years ago.
> The LSB's charter is
> to specify a set of APIs that will allow useful third party software
> to run across a wide variety of systems.
Developing the ABI for Linux was seen as the best route to accomplishing
the job. Adding a few things beyond the strict limits of the ABI was also
seen as a good thing.
> Specifying the uid of the bin
> user does not make it easier to write software for Linux systems, and
> it limits the number of systems on which LSB-compliant software can run.
As I said above, I don't mind removing the uids, I just want to make sure that
proper diligence is used when doing so.
> The standard is recognised to be buggy and there is no existing userbase.
> What better time do you think there'll be to remove it?
I'm not resisting the removal of it, just that a proper process be followed.
This avoids having to ask the questions "how large does the user base have
to be before we can't fix something".
> Of course, I suppose you could argue that if the standard is kept buggy,
> there probably won't ever be a userbase. Do you really want to?
I have never suggested keeping it buggy.
> Enough with going around in circles about pointless nonsense. There are
> a handful of simple changes that are needed right now for the LSB to
> achieve its goals. It's time to make them.
>
> Who has commit access to version 1.2 of the spec?
Myself and a few others, but I have been tasked with ensuring that changes are
made in a consistant manner. That's all I am trying to do.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
http://www.metrolink.com/ XFree86 Core Team
Reply to: