Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > > For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is > specified, the package will be possible to install and will run > correctly. We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and > explicitly say we don't care for future releases. So shouldn't redhat-lsb or some subpackage be the one that pull that part ? As I do not think that Fedora is out of the box LSB compliant, I do not think that's a strong reason ( even if "not breaking outside stuff" could be something that matter ). In fact, if we were serious at supporting it, we would have it as a release criteria. I think we don't, and I think no one was interested into having it ( or rather, interested enough to do the job ). Also, regarding LSB compliance, do we want to consider all products to be LSB compliant by default, as I can perfectly see the cloud product being more interested into cleaning than lsb ? > And it's not only commercial software; private projects that make no > sense to publish (such as a company's web site) are equally affected > such changes. Simply spoken, if we care only about package in Fedora, > we are building an appliance; if we want to build an operating system, > we do need to cater for software not included directly in the repo. Then how can we signal to people that they need to update those packages ? Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that will result into bitrot if no one really test. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
