On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 10:32, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:42:58PM -0700, James Sparenberg wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 05:46, Kwan Lowe wrote: > [...] > > > Is it LSB compliant? Dunno, but it seems close. > > > > Actually I've often found it to be a lot more compliant (and btw it does > > pass the test if you install the LSB packages) than some of the stuff > > coming from the developers. > > Well, you have to admit that developers have no reason to be LSB > compliant as such, especially not, if they're developing > cross-platform, portable applications and their development platform > isn't Linux (might as well be Solaris or one of the BSDs or any other > Unix - none of those has anything to with LSB).
True enough... for them FHS compliance, and POSIX compliance are sufficient. > > > > QMail is a great example, Gee lets put all > > of our executables in /var and the forbid the user to change it. > > I seem to remember that there is reasoning behind this on part of the > author - it's been a while, though, that I read about it. <shrug> Ego *grin* > > Cheerio, > > Thomas
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
