On 03/31/2014 03:34 PM, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On 03/31/2014 07:06 AM, "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
This is not correct. LSB applications may be packaged in a number of
ways
As far as I know only two either by using rpm or by using lsbinstall (
which has it's own set of problems ) and it's bit odd is it not, for
standard to be providing it's own installer let alone be providing two
options when that said standards sole existence is to eliminate
fragmentation ( so it should either be providing only one method of
doing things or none at all ).
By participating:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/contributing
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.
I don't believe *joining* is that complicated; we take on any comers.
There is a bit of a learning curve, though, which we are working on
addressing, and that probably contributes to the difficulty people have
with participating in a meaningful fashion.
Another possible factor is that standards work isn't very "sexy", and
involves a lot of things that the free software community hasn't been as
good at in the past--documentation, testing, etc.
People are working on standardizing things outside the so called
standard itself so the man power and will to do so is not the problem here.
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.
I'm sorry you have that perception. We try to be strictly neutral
regarding distributions, and one of the goals in our most recent efforts
is explicitly to more aggressively target the community distributions.
Try being a keyword here.
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.
Do you have concrete suggestions for how to solve those problems?
Here's a concrete slab on top of my head head LSB could try to to follow
, to restore faith in LSB as in ....
A) Stop expecting people reaching out to you but start *reaching out*
to application developers distribution and their community.
B) Explain to them what the benefits of standardization is and how it
can be used to achieve their aims.
C) Listen and work with developers, distribution and community's
working out issues and reach consensus what said standard should be.
D) Help them building policies, regulations and other frameworks that
support the standards within their community's.
E) *Monitor* progress of distribution and application developers
implementing and following said standards.
F) Break into parts the process of defining the standard as in involve
the involved developers in the specific area in the part of the
standards being defined.
In other words there are no individuals that are seasoned enough
or possess the engineering talent to be able to cover all sections of
the standard
G) Hold workshops with the individuals that are tasked with defining
parts of the standards, policies, regulations and other frameworks that
support that standard.
JBG
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
