On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
Debian packages shouldn't have to compete with the LSB for its own
namespace.
Well, assuming that it is a good thing to have cross-distribution
consistency, because this make users more comfortable with
[Steve Langasek]
The goal of the LSB is to provide a standard that ISVs can write to
-- *not* to make life easier for admins moving from distro to
distro.
Hm, that is sad. Because some of us with a large number of machines,
do need to handle cross-distribution consistency. Not to move from
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
The goal of the LSB is to provide a standard that ISVs can write to
-- *not* to make life easier for admins moving from distro to
distro.
Hm, that is sad. Because some of us with a large number of machines,
do need to handle cross-distribution
ma, 2005-10-03 kello 13:55 +0100, Philip Hands kirjoitti:
I think both latitudes can be largely satisfied if LANANA can be persuaded
(if they do not already do so) to solicit approval from distributors before
issuing new approvals.
It's so much easier to do this:
1) LANANA only
Petter Reinholdtsen writes...
[Steve Langasek]
Debian packages shouldn't have to compete with the LSB for its own
namespace.
As pointed out in another mail, they don't. Trying to quash this wrong idea
before it spreads...
Well, assuming that it is a good thing to have
Steve Langasek writes...
That's a fine goal, but I believe it's out of scope for the LSB, and I don't
want to see the ability of distros to conform to the LSB compromised by some
poorly designed attempt to enforce common init script names.
As I pointed out in another mail, the LSB can't
6 matches
Mail list logo
