Re: Debian LSB Status

2002-08-30 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:57:38PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > It had been my > > understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an issue as > > well; is that a part of the spec we don't have to comply with for the > > specific certification we are seeking? > [The] 1.2 spec [clarif

Re: Debian LSB Status

2002-08-29 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Aug 29, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:24:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. > > The outstanding issues are: > [snip] > > Thanks for this extremely informative report. It had been my > understand

Re: Debian LSB Status

2002-08-29 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:24:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. > The outstanding issues are: [snip] Thanks for this extremely informative report. It had been my understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an

Re: Debian LSB Status

2002-08-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:37:10AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote: > What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. The outstanding issues are: * alien's permissions and ownership handling (the woo

Re: Debian LSB Status

2002-08-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:37:10AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote: > What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? http://people.debian.org/~taggart/debconf2/ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Debian LSB Status

2002-08-15 Thread Grant Bowman
What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake "have become Linux Standard Base (LSB) Certified." While Bdale's comment is interesting, it does not speak to Debian's LSB status. http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.081402/60275