Andreas Barth writes... > I think we should start to discuss which LSB version we want to have as > basis for etch soon.
I don't know of any reason why it can't be LSB 3.0 (spec release this week). It does require a newer glibc than sarge and some of the X tests might require Xorg to pass, but those are both goals for etch right? I'll be running the 3.0 tests on etch soon. > about LSB, you can of course lead that discussion if you want. In any > case, we would be thankful for your input on this matter, especially on > a list of differences between LSB 1.3 (which is still the standard in > Debian), and the best-match for etch in your opinion. I think we might even been 2.0 compliant in sarge, but we're still testing that. > Feel free to start a public discussion by posting these information > directly to debian-devel, or to hand them over to the release team or to > me, so that we can start a public discussion, or in anything else as you > consider it fit. Ok, good idea, I'll bring the subject up on debian-lsb and maybe send a pointer or summary to debian-devel for those not on debian-lsb. > If there is anything else from your side on that matter, please don't > hesitate to tell us. OK. How do you feel about multi-arch? http://people.debian.org/~taggart/multiarch/ How do you feel about support for alternate (ie non-sysv) init systems? Thanks, -- Matt Taggart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
