[lsb-discuss] Linux Application Checker impressions
dirk.hohndel at intel.com
Sat Aug 9 06:41:42 PDT 2008
On 8/8/08 10:56 PM, "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
>> 2) it was delivered as a tarball rather than an LSB package.
>> While there's nothing wrong with tarballs, this
>> seems like an area where eating your own dogfood
>> might be appropriate.
> It was discussed; while I generally agree with you this
> was a case where (for now) it was considered it could
> provide a barrier to entry for people who don't otherwise
> have an LSB-conforming distro to use for their testing.
I think that's the wrong assumption. LSB is everywhere - there are basically
no distributions out there that aren't either LSB out of the box or can be
made LSB conforming by installing a couple of packages. So it makes only
sense to have this an LSB package.
And in a way this is a matter of "attitude" as well. Delivering it as tar
ball implies that we don't believe in our own success...
More information about the lsb-discuss