--- Nick Matteo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Macromedia has to do no such thing. All they have
to do for their code to run
everywhere is release their source.
If they aren't willing to do that, there's a heck of
a lot more hassle to
install their hidden, uncheckable, unfree program,
which
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote:
hi all,
i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant?
snip
LSB - no. The LSB is for providers of binary software, among other
things it mandates RPM as a package manager, and a particular version of
the c++
Jaqui Greenlees wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
LSB - no. The LSB is for providers of binary
software, among other things it mandates RPM as a package manager,
really? I never saw a package manager requirement in
it.
Ken Moffat wrote:
You might want to read Ulrich Drepper's recent blog on the LSB:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html
I completely agree with his argument. While they are able to implement
the system that passes their own testsuite, this system fails to comply
with the
hi all,
i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant?
with regards,
C.C.Chakkaradeep
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote:
hi all,
i just want to know whether LFS is LSB or FHS compliant?
with regards,
C.C.Chakkaradeep
FHS - maybe. If my memory is correct, the instructions for FHS
compliance are in the book, but some of them might be phrased as
optional.
LSB -
