[RFC] plans for initscripts in F22

Michael Scherer misc at zarb.org
Sat Apr 26 09:24:10 UTC 2014


Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :

> 
> For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is
> specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
> correctly.  We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and
> explicitly say we don't care for future releases.

So shouldn't redhat-lsb or some subpackage be the one that pull that
part ?

As I do not think that Fedora is out of the box LSB compliant, I do not
think that's a strong reason ( even if "not breaking outside stuff"
could be something that matter ).

In fact, if we were serious at supporting it, we would have it as a
release criteria. I think we don't, and I think no one was interested
into having it ( or rather, interested enough to do the job ).

Also, regarding LSB compliance, do we want to consider all products to
be LSB compliant by default, as I can perfectly see the cloud product
being more interested into cleaning than lsb ?

> And it's not only commercial software; private projects that make no
> sense to publish (such as a company's web site) are equally affected
> such changes. Simply spoken, if we care only about package in Fedora,
> we are building an appliance; if we want to build an operating system,
> we do need to cater for software not included directly in the repo.

Then how can we signal to people that they need to update those
packages ?
 
Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that
will result into bitrot if no one really test.

-- 
Michael Scherer



More information about the devel mailing list