[lsb-discuss] LSB conference call agenda (2012-01-25, 11am ET)
vrub77 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 17:12:17 UTC 2012
Mats, you are absolutely right but I guess not everybody will love your
While being yet ISPRAS employees we tried to formulate a new LSB value
proposition and marketing positioning but in order to kick off the
corresponding implementation we needed resources and we failed to
interest potential stakeholders. No resources - no result, it's all fair.
I can tell you one secret though - there is a small chance that we will
find funding for "a new LSB" from the Russian government in context of
building the National Software Platform project. It is a lengthy process
which should have a resolution (either negative or positive) this year.
If it works out then I believe we will have a chance to relaunch the LSB
and reach the critical mass necessary to keep it going as long as needed.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to hear opinions and ideas about possible
new LSB in this list.
Vladimir Rubanov, Ph.D., PMP
VP Engineering and Deputy CEO
ROSA Software Development Center
25.01.2012 19:15, Wichmann, Mats D ?????:
> - Finish (restoration) bug review started last week.
> - Plans for buildbot.
> I wish to again voice my very serious concern here. We seem to be
> happily spinning along learning how to apply DevOps to the
> infrastructure of a complex open source project, while the project
> itself makes absolutely zero progress. There are more than a few
> issues pending, and the world we're trying to serve continues to pass
> us by - as examples we have no answer for the switch to systemd, we
> utterly ignore security issues - even basic things like extended
> attributes, we're so far behind on gcc/c++ support that modern
> compilers don't work with the LSB development tools, OpenGL might just
> as well not even be specified as it's a decade out of date, and the
> list goes on nearly endlessly. As documentation of "current practice"
> in the Linux space, we're... not. There are 441 open bugs in the LSB
> bugzilla, most of which are not "infrastructure" (or devops) related,
> and an old project plan for an LSB 5.0 release. Are we actually going
> to get on with those items? If not, then I don't see much purpose in
> worrying about the infrastructure, since it won't be needed if the
> project is dead - something that looks more and more to be the case.
> I'm far more interested in looking at whether there's a future in
> which some form of the LSB project remains relevant and how to move in
> that direction than hear yet more about restoration of services that
> have been absent for four months or more and should have just been
> restored, without needing to involve the group in the discussion, long
> long ago. Projects that might naturally be hosted here are happening
> elsewhere (see for example "distributions" and "packagemap" at
> freedesktop.org <http://freedesktop.org> - is there actually going to
> be a unification of package naming as has been talked about since LSB
> started?) and we're not even in the conversations, perhaps that's
> something we should be looking at?
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lsb-discuss