On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Didier Raboud wrote: > Isn't that what "LSB" is meant to provide?
I guess it is, but as far as I understand, it kind of fails on the point "is actually widely adopted by the community". Unfortunately. > Besides that is suffers from another type of fragmentation: upstream's > engagements on long-term supporting their supposedly extra-stable APIs. The > case I'm thinking about is stuff like Qt3, that is a "must" of the LSB > version > we will claim to support in Wheezy but that noone can reasonably claim to > support security-wise, because Qt upstream's moved to Qt4 (or 5, or 6 > already?). Indeed. Neither distributions nor LSB can promise a long-term stable API if upstreams aren't committed to it. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
