Matt Taggart wrote: >>Also is Debian interested in skipping LSB 2.0 compliance and moving >>straight to LSB 3.0? > > I don't think so because sarge can't be 3.0 compliant (glibc isn't new enough > among other things) so I think 2.0 for sarge and 3.0+ for etch.
Have you seen this? http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/06/16/a-new-approach-to-the-lsb/ http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/06/16/a-new-approach-to-the-lsb-part-2/ In other words, we're working on a way to make sarge LSB 3.0 compliant without having to introduce an updated libc (and break compatibility). -- Ian Murdock 317-578-8882 (office) http://www.progeny.com/ http://ianmurdock.com/ "A nerd is someone who uses a telephone to talk to other people about telephones." --Douglas Adams -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
