[RFC] plans for initscripts in F22
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
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
Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that
will result into bitrot if no one really test.
More information about the devel