One aspect I found questionable was the reference to ~6 registered applications. I'd venture to say there are a lot of applications relying on LSB that don't register. Just an observation.
Rob ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Mats Wichmann <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 9:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [lsb-discuss] comments on "Debian dropping LSB" Some/many of you may have seen an LWN article which has been moderately widely quoted elsewhere describing Debian's move away from a full LSB support package. What I wanted to note here was one of the comments on the article: "VirtualBox provides a package which aims to run on random Linux distributions. We do not pay attention to the LSB, instead we try to work with what distributions actually do. More specifically, we are moving to looking at the tools present on a system (e.g. systemd, insserv for system services) rather than the actual distribution and working with those, fixing things when that breaks in some particular configuration which we think is worth supporting." What this commenter holds out as better is actually almost exactly the problem LSB was trying to solve: application developers have to work out what each distro is doing, use that, and then fix those special approaches on each system, whereby it becomes clear only a few especially high value distributions end up supported since everybody changes a little all the time and it won't be worth keeping up with those changes. Depressing that the message seems to have been so completely misunderstood. _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
