On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote: > > > but it is Debian's job to be responsive to its users needs and > > > Debian has made a choice to strive for susv3 compatibility > > > > I don't think you understand what "compatibility" means in this > > context. It does not mean that you can substitute any component of > > the system with a different standards-compliant version and > > everything must continue to work. > > So, what does "compatibility" mean in this context?
Debian has *achieved* susv3 compatibility. There is nothing more to be done. A compatible implementation is allowed to have special options "behind the scenes" which it uses to implement things. Compatibility (actually, I believe the term is compliance) refers to the entire system, not its individual components. > > > Our users needs do not, by and large, include embedded systems. > > I am glad that "by and large" is not the standard, for that would make > Debian somewhat less universal than it is. *Yawn*. I don't care about making a distribution suitable for every possible purpose. I see no shame in saying that we are suitable for some purposes and not others. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
