On 2011-04-28, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > "Alex (karl exceed) Decker" <[email protected]> writes: >> Just out of curiosity, I noticed that Debian has not been registered as >> CGL compliant since the 2.0 standard. Is there any plan on working >> toward CGL 5.0 compliance? >> I understand that it's a bit above and beyond normal usage, but a proven >> 5-nine uptime is something to brag about... > This is the first time I've ever heard anyone even mention the existence > of CGL, and I work professionally as a systems administrator for critical > services (on Linux, even). Does anyone actually care about this > specification? Often this sort of thing ends up being essentially a > marketing tactic by the vendors involved in developing the specification > rather than being something useful for improving technical quality.
It seems that mainly tagging a list is the main part and reporting back what's still missing would cut it. You can download the tag lists from the already (self-)evaluated distributions and it looked somewhat useful/sane to have all those parts in the distro to be there when you need it. But yeah, sure, it would mainly be marketing for those sysadmins who try to "sell" Debian as the best since sliced bread for routers and firewalls[1]. ;-) And if something's missing and subsequently added it would be helpful for others, too. Kind regards Philipp Kern [1] Maybe less for routers but more so for firewalls. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
