On Fri, Mar 21, at 05:47 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Therefore, I believe that BLFS is fine installing stuff into
> /usr. But it depends on what you see as the definition of "the distro".
Yes, is a controversial material at the minimum and I guess we can also
interpret FHS differently and so on and so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
>
>> Example? The common usage of /usr. Convenient but fundamental
>> broken. From all the BLFS packages the half or even more, (they)
>> really bellongs to /usr/local hierarchy.
>
> Why should t
Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> Example? The common usage of /usr. Convenient but fundamental broken.
>>From all the BLFS packages the half or even more, (they) really bellongs
> to /usr/local hierarchy.
Why should they be in /usr/local? If a package is in the book, it is
part of the "distro" and
On Wed, Mar 19, at 11:52 J. Greenlees wrote:
[...]
> Both sections need to be made as simple and clear as possible, with the
> absolute minimum required for a functional system to be base system
> standard.
While I understand your points and I can't but I agree with you, I am
not sure if we can c
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 17:37:42 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> That's how things currently go, but it's a big mess. Let's say I've
> developed my proprietary app on RHEL and now I want to sell it to
> some company running Ubuntu. If I want it to be directly installable
> for them, I have to port the pa
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Robert Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire
> I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, and Bruce
> did ask for inpu
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire
I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, and Bruce
did ask for input on topics to bring up. (and I don't mean this in the
whiny, argumentative way it l
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> In the context of *LFS, I don't think it really makes any sense to
> pursue the LSB.
Yes it does make sense. It makes us a part of the larger Linux
community. It enables a user to add a proprietary package if desired.
I know many LFSers may not want to use proprietary s
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Robert Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain
> > non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific
> > the LSB gets,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, J. Greenlees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With the LSB:
> Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a
> functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ]
> to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If ex
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote:
>
> Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain
> non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific
> the LSB gets, the less respect many people will have for it. Specific
> in software over the true base syste
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the LSB Core specification is pretty
> sparse:
> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html
and that is where it should stop to be the base they intend.
everything else makes it a DIS
On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:52 PM, J. Greenlees wrote:
With the LSB:
Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a
functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ]
to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If extras are
going to
be included, th
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have been invited to attend the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit
> taking place at the University of Texas Supercomputing Center in Austin,
> TX from April 8 to 10, 2008.
>
> I applied using my LFS background and feel I will be representing the
> com
I have been invited to attend the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit
taking place at the University of Texas Supercomputing Center in Austin,
TX from April 8 to 10, 2008.
I applied using my LFS background and feel I will be representing the
community there. The agenda is at:
https
15 matches
Mail list logo
