[lsb-discuss] Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please
mats at wichmann.us
Mon Mar 31 19:04:51 UTC 2014
On 03/31/14 12:23, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On 03/31/2014 01:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> 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 ).
> Well, I'm willing to be corrected. Can you point to the place in the
> spec where this restriction is documented? I'll file a bug right away
> to make sure this is fixed for our impending release.
lsbinstall never made it. It was listed in future directions for a few
editions, but not achieving promotion to spec status, it was dropped -
you won't find it anywhere in LSB 4.1, and it was /never/ required. It
wasn't a separate package installer anyway, rather an abstraction
method, allowing a file to be placed in a distro-specific location (by
how they implemented the command) rather than calling out the directory
name specifically in the LSB (particularly if agreement on codifying
that name did not exist).
>> Here's a concrete slab on top of my head head LSB could try to to follow
>> , to restore faith in LSB as in ....
> Thanks for your feedback. I'll point out that we do many of those
> things already, although obviously not to the extent that you noticed,
> so that could be improved.
>From my perspective, indeed we did all of these to considerable extent
in the past. Reduced resourcing in the project has unfortunately cut
into "LSB people" to be able to spend active time on those, but there
was also an effect of diminishing returns that naturally caused it to
scale back. You can reach out, you can offer, but you can't force...
More information about the lsb-discuss