On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:57:49AM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> > Okay, so let's summarize. This rule breaks things as it is. If we change it,
> > other things might break. However, nobody can think of what these other
> > things are. The choice seems pretty clear, now let's start the procedure of
> > changing. :)
>
> OK 8-). I do feel that part of the proceedure is to understand why it was
> added in the first place. The only thing worse than having it in there, would
> be to remove it, and then discover the hard way why it had been put in there
> to begin with.
Thank you. It seems plainly obvious that this is necessary and I suspect
not many will object to so doing, but I have come to discover that when
dealing with groups you actually have to SAY these things now and then.
As for how some of the users and groups LSB proposes as standard got there
when nobody can seem to remember how or why, I can offer existing practice
as a reason. You may recall that two of the things discussed early in the
life of LSB were deployment to existing systems wherever practical and NFS
shares between LSB compliant systems. The latter, I recall, was shot down
for its impracticality when considering the former. They are explanation
enough for a number of things I have seen reconsidered by the LSB project
over the past few years. ;)
I don't have old list archives handy and am currently unable to search to
see if my memory happens to coincide neatly with reality yet. I doo seem
to remember this very discussion taking place over this very case long ago
now, so it is at least possible. =)
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> Hey, that's MY freak show!
<Knghtbrd> mariab - don't think Debian hasn't had some very stupid and
obvious bugs before
<Knghtbrd> of course, we usually fix ours BEFORE we release =D
Attachment:
pgpMf3lIAyGOv.pgp
Description: PGP signature