Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:13:13AM -0800, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> > It's now too late to change
> > that for versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the LSB specification
>
> I know no one's going to actually listen to me here, but it bears
> repeating: this is quite simply wrong.
>
> It's our spec. We can do whatever we like to it. We can declare that
> packages written by people whose middle name has an odd number of
> letters were never intended to comply with the specs, and issue updates
> to both version 1.0 and 1.1 tomorrow to say that. No one is going to stop
> us. We're not going to be thrown in prison. We're not going to have our
> editors or our web pages taken away from us.
>
> More to the point: we're not even going to annoy anyone. Of the
> distributors who've started trying to conform to the LSB, *none* of them
> will have to change anything. Any application developers who've been
> writing LSB packages will be pleased to have been informed of what they
> have to do to make sure their programs actually run on Debian.
They don't care about running on Debian - at least, they shouldn't. If
they have written a program using this part of LSB 1.0, it shouldn't
matter if it's Debian, Slackware or Caldera they are running on if
these distribution claim to implement the standard. If they don't
claim to implement it, the program isn't expected to run anyway.
Any revision of the standard shouldn't go through overnight, but be in
a future revision after being carefully reviewed, and a rationale for
the change should be given (as it should have for being in there in
the first place).
> We could do this tomorrow, and _no one_ would have any cause to
> complain.
Anyone using it (developers, book printers, etc) would have cause.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
Reply to: