On Aug 21, 5:59pm in "Re: LSB.fhs failure ", Anthony Towns wrote: > But it'd be nice to see some demonstration that the LSB spec is actually > useful for what it's meant to be for, rather than just having to take > it on faith. > Agreed there will need to be multiple conforming applications and distributions before success for the LSB can be proclaimed. There also needs to be at least one processor specific LSB specification completed before the spec side is complete. This will take some time... we are not there yet. regards Andrew
- LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample Implementation Matt Taggart
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample Implement... Andrew Josey
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample Imple... M. Drew Streib
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample I... Andrew Josey
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Samp... Anthony Towns
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian... Andrew Josey
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for De... Anthony Towns
- sendmail requirements (was R... Andrew Josey
- sendmail requirements (was Re: LSB.f... Andrew Josey
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample Imple... Matt Taggart
- Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample I... Andrew Josey
- X11R6 symlink (was Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for ... Andrew Josey
