On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 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.
That's like saying that violating POSIX (when POSIXLY_CORRECT is *not* set) is a release-critical bug in glibc. I'd bet that you'll go back on those words eventually. Bugs are things that break software, not arbitrary third-party specifications. Historically, when the specification requires you to do something that is a bug, we break it. Most other people do the same. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
