2014-04-26 11:24 GMT+02:00 Michael Scherer <m...@zarb.org>: > 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 ? >
That's a clean solution for the LSB concern, but not for the larger point. (Honestly this is more a matter of reinforcing the principle than finding a perfect solution for that specific file.) > 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 ? > My opinion is that *in most cases* this is just asking the wrong question; we shouldn't *need* to signal that. When old applications correctly using the API of $os_name stops working, your product is in a very practical sense *no longer $os_name*. Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that > will result into bitrot if no one really test. > The principled answer to this is to have a comprehensive automated test suite... which, unfortunately, we don't have. Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct