On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:14AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote: > It seems to me that a natural step would be to update the policy to > reflect the FHS 2.2 and add LSB 1.0. Is this already in progress?
I'm not sure if there's any sort of "official" position on this, but mine is that the LSB isn't in a position to be supported yet, "1.0" version number or not. When there are some sample "foo.lsb" packages that can actually be installed on Red Hat systems (let alone all "LSB compliant" systems) it might be worth thinking about this. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue." -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
pgpfFwURr6Ba0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
