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 02:31:20PM -0500, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > They don't care about running on Debian - at least, they shouldn't.
>
> You're confused.
>
> ISV's using the LSB obviously care about running on Debian: they care about
> running on as many platforms as possible to increase their potential market
> share, either so they can make more money, or so they can be more
> famous.
My point it they shouldn't have to care about distribution specific
items, issues coming from Debian or anyone else. One of the main goals
of LSB is to isolate the developers from this.
> What they don't want to do is have to special case us. If they follow
> the LSB 1.0 or 1.1 specs, and make any use of the bin=uid 1 clause, then
> they'll find they *will* have to special case us, and that will annoy
> them, since the LSB's raison d'etre is to avoid that nonsense. Correcting
> the spec allows us to avoid annoying them. Not correcting it buys no
> one anything.
It's not a bug, it's a "why the ???? did this feature get added?"
issue, which also highlights the necessity of documenting _why_ things
are put into the standard. A specific release of particular
distribution not conforming to the LSB standard is not an LSB bug.
> > 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.
>
> We're not designing this spec in a vacuum. There are real people out there
> with real needs that we're trying to satisfy. If we're not satisfying
> their needs now, we need to change it so we are. Debian is one set of
> such people, ISVs who want their products to run on both Red Hat and
> Debian are another.
Debian not complying with LSB is not much of LSB need, it's a Debian
need if they want to comply.
> Our aim is to let people say "Sure, my program will run on Linux. Doesn't
> matter what flavour. Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, heck, even BSD
> or Solaris via the compatability layers." We're not aiming to have
> people say "It'll run on Red Hat and SuSE. It won't run on Debian,
> because although that's Linux, it's not *really* Linux". Or at least,
> the people who I've talked to aren't.
Then Debian could fix it if they want to comply with the standard.
> > 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).
>
> Sure. All of these things should happen. But they shouldn't be used as an
> excuse to delay or block a necessary change for months (like has already
> happened on this very issue) when the *original spec* had absolutely
> none of these things.
Changes should not get silently and quickly put in, unless they're
typos or similar.
> > > We could do this tomorrow, and _no one_ would have any cause to
> > > complain. Anyone using it (developers, book printers, etc)
> > > would have cause.
>
> All those masses of developers shipping LSB 1.0 or 1.1 compliant software?
> Or the masses of publishers who've already written whole chapters about
> why uid 1 should be the bin user, even though we can't think of even a
> sentence to justify it?
Or just printing the standard? One thing is having a 1.0.1 with this
removed, but you don't just silently revise a standard. If I pick it
up in print, I want 1.0 to be 1.0. Not one of a couple of 1.0s.
> > Trond Eivind Glomsrød
> > Red Hat, Inc.
>
> Of course, I suppose Red Hat does have a market incentive to make it
> as difficult as possible for Debian to comply with the LSB.
>
> "Oh, no, your products won't run on Debian, because those hacker wannabes
> can't manage to comply with simple community developed standards. Better
> buy Red Hat instead."
>
> So I suppose someone does have a cause to complain afterall. My mistake.
That's just stupid.
> Cheers,
> aj, who'd be much less bitter if the last seven months had resulted in
> pretty much anything other than "Oh, but Debian should suffer for
> our art too, coz Red Hat did" (Hi, Chris)
Minimal suffering for everyone is a good thing.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
Reply to: