Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following is all aiui; I'm not involved in the LSB. > > > > The LSB's purpose is "to enable a uniform industry standard > environment". > > Yes, but I think you have the wrong interpretation of those words. > The LSB's current, and by default permanent, mission, is creation of > _Barely Enough_ of _Common Ground_ so that ISVs can create a > single binary that installs and runs without fatal error on multiple > distributions. And NOTHING MORE.
I understand that argument, and if that is the position of the LSB, than so be it. I will accept that. > Debating expansion of this mission right now would be highly > inappropriate. It was chosen several years ago by those participating > and making it happen, and they have yet to fully deliver on this limited > mission (though they are apparently getting close). However, I disagree on the point of not being allowed to change the definition or to argue about it just because it has been worked on for years. That's just not a good argument. I think it's important that something like the LSB needs to evolve as it develops - if the issue of man-pages has been discussed before and reason has given arguments that they should not be made mandatory, then I would enjoy the read of that discussion (after which I would shut up or bring the issue back for further discussion). If it hasn't, then now is as good a time as ever to debate it. But I insist: "it's never been done like that" is not a good argument. -Jan -- Jan Schaumann http://www.netmeister.org
