[lsb-discuss] LSB conference call agenda (2012-01-25, 11am ET)

Robert Schweikert rjschwei at suse.com
Wed Jan 25 15:29:58 UTC 2012



On 01/25/2012 10:15 AM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>
>
>     Agenda:
>
>       - 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 specified as it's a decade out of date, and the list goes on nearly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?

Thank you Mats

+1



-- 
Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list