Stuart Anderson writes... > dependence on rsh) is not defined by the LSB. In otherwords, LSB provided > commands do not themselves have to be LSB conformant. Usualy, it is trivial > to ensure that they are, but it is not required.
That seems wrong to me, not requiring it sort of taints the whole process. IMHO the LSB should at least have the *potential* of standing alone. It doesn't today, but that's because not enough is defined to make a working system, which is a different issue. Should it be required that lsb components be lsb conformant? -- Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab [EMAIL PROTECTED] HP Linux Systems Operation
