Previously VomLehn, David wrote: > That's not the issue and Debian is not going to comply with LSB 1.0, > ever.
>From what I see no distribution will be LSB 1.0 complient but will start with 1.1 instead. But that isn't really relevant here. > The most difficult question that a standards body codifying existing > practice deals with is trying to not break existing software. Mostly agreed. > If I were Debian, I would be frustrated at the length of time it takes > to obsolete a feature. That isn't frustrating. Debian has always been in the business of providing seemless upgrades and we've been dealing with numerous multi-year transitions forever so we know how that works. The frustrating bit is that apparently these users were added to the LSB without a clear rationale and we need to clean up the resulting mess now. > It's an unfortunate reality that software producers need to have time > to change their products, but it is also an unavoidable reality. Can we try and investigate if there is a product out there that actually uses these two users? I would be very surprised of one exists. > Lastly, I offer the observation that if it were easy to create and > update a Linux interface standard, it would have been done a long time > ago. That isn't going to stop anyone from complaining though :) Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
