* Anthony Towns <[email protected]> [011128 16:06]: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:14AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote: > > It seems to me that a natural step would be to update the policy to > > reflect the FHS 2.2 and add LSB 1.0. Is this already in progress? > > I'm not sure if there's any sort of "official" position on this, but > mine is that the LSB isn't in a position to be supported yet, "1.0" > version number or not. When there are some sample "foo.lsb" packages > that can actually be installed on Red Hat systems (let alone all "LSB > compliant" systems) it might be worth thinking about this.
Re: LSB 1.0.1-011119, I can appreciate your viewpoint. I am simply curious to see what kind of policy targets are being considered for 3.+, how well the various parts of the LSB have been reviewed and how close we already are to being compliant. I would like to see potential pitfalls anticipated and addressed. I am confident that items like init script status commands and runlevel symlinks can be worked on since these are only extensions of current policy. I am sure there will be wonderfully witty and articulate debate. I haven't read the LSB in it's entirety yet. I realize this is my next step to a clearer understanding. I don't think anybody has any illusion that because the policy changes everything instantly becomes compliant. Let me pose this alternative question for discussion: will Debian officially ignore the LSB in official policy? That seems to be where we are presently which surprises me. Why am I surprised? Debian has been hosting several of the mailing lists since 1998 & Debian is listed on the linuxbase.org home page. There are many intricated issues involved in moving toward complying with such a large specification. No matter how dedicated the developers, this will a good amount of time. It's hard for even a commercial organization to comply who has more inherent structure. Cheers, -- -- Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
