On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such > > standards violations as bugs. > Correct. Violating the LSB is not a bug.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's not simply a bug, it's a release critical bug. The responsibility of finding a fix belongs to the -lsb group, but the maintainer is still required to apply the fix in the usual timely manner expected for RC bugs. > Nor is violating the win32 > API. Neither of them are relevant; we ship Debian packages, not LSB > packages or win32 programs, We aim to ship an LSB compliant OS distribution; the LSB requirements for those are different to the requirements for LSB apps for obvious reasons. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
