On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Last time I check and from dawn of time the LSB standard required application > to be packaged in RPM format which immediately excludes distributions that do > not use RPM as their default/preferred package manager no .. only that a conforming distristribution be able to accept content so packaged. 'cpio' will do this unpacking tastk, just fine > Fast moving distributions as well as standalone applications and application > stacks should be able to follow well defined standards. > > If not that just highlights shortcomings of that standard > not the distribution or the application or application > stack. I am listening and looking for filed bugs by you. The common ones we hear are complaints about the MTA and printer support components. EACH of those has a stub tool, which removes the need to carry a full implementation around > How do individuals join the standards committee? The last 'unofficial minutes' post I send each month addresses this in great detail, which I will not repeat here [1] There was not a set in March, as we had our 'face to face' meeting, with, as noted before, dial in and G+ access open and well adverted in the minutes and wiki, leading up to the event > This highlights the fact that the joining process might be > to complicated or lack of buy in from distribution and > application developers due to the standards not being > maintained/defined well enough. Speculate if you wish, but you are wrong here. If anything, there has been a convergence on Linux distributions, lacking in the early days, which mean we at LSB have successfully gained the buy in that a distribution seeking uptake needs to meet many standards > Why should an application or distribution strive to follow and meet those > standards when they are not in the buisness of selling or supporting that > distribution, application or application stack since to me that standard has > always seemed to be more written to favoring those that make profit out of > GNU/Linux ( Red Hat/Novel etc) and related software rather than being focused > on standardization/unification in the GNU/Linux ecosystem. These questions are out of scope to the LSB, me, and this part of the thread perhaps, as they relate to Fedora's mission definition, rather than those of the LSB. Is it really the mission of Fedora to be hostile to a profit? [2] is gone, but I have an archival copy at [3] and Objective 13 looks relevant; Non-Objective 2 shows an early fear that Fedora could succeed 'too well', I suppose A commercial, vs non-commercial axis, perhaps. Even RMS and the GPL[s] don't say: no comemrcial usage or profit intent, please. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact > > I cannot think of a single third party open bug on 5 filed > > after the first beta drop, and it is ready to go once we > > complete the rest of our P1 items > > Few bugs open does not mean that standard is well written it > might just as well mean nobody is following/using thus have > faith in it and the fragmentation in the GNU/Linux ecosystem > itself is evidence enough that LSB is failing as > standardization body since it does not solve the problems it > initially was created to solve. Again speculation without knowledge or particular cases. I won't dignify vague handwaving until you provide a specific example to dissect -- Russ herrold [1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2014-February/007857.html at: How to get involved: [2] http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html [3] http://www.owlriver.com/support/wings/fedora-not-a-server-distribution.pdf _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
