[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       osdl-lsb-discuss
Subject:    Re: [lsb-discuss] LSB; was: Re: starting Fedora Server SIG (fwd)
From:       R P Herrold <herrold () owlriver ! com>
Date:       2008-11-12 19:56:31
Message-ID: alpine.LRH.2.00.0811121430280.30887 () arj ! bjyevire ! pbz
[Download RAW message or body]


I guess I was wrong -- Red Hat (and its development proxy 
Fedora) does not care about LSB, nor improving things within 
the LSB framework. (see attached after my .sig)

> "we'll just choose to ignore LSB, like, say, every Linux
> ISV does"

The question that I have voiced on calls: for the decloaking 
of "Linux ISV's" is really something that LSB needs to address 
-- if no ISV steps up and says: 'well yes, certification DOES 
matter to us', I think 'spot' has probably it right, and we 
can stop re-arranging the deck chairs.

My invitation was clearly irrelevant in Fedora space when the 
invitation was shot down in under ten minutes by a dual-hatted 
Fedora Project Board member, and '@redhat.com' who "has worked 
for Red Hat since 2001, and is currently the Fedora 
Engineering Manager. A founding member of the Fedora Steering 
Committee, and the chair of the Fedora Packaging Committee 
..."
 	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board#Members

Ted, the Red Hat ball is in your hands; Kay, will any of the 
'several hundred' ISV's step forward?

-- Russ herrold

ps -- the reference to 'ManBearPig' was unknown to me:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:04:50
From: Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora
     <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
To: Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
Subject: fedora-d-rh] Re: LSB; was: Re: starting Fedora Server SIG

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:55 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> I predict that when LSB 4.0 releases, there will be much
> wailing and gnashing of teeth, because no-one from Fedora has
> 'been at the table' arguing (and getting the consensus and
> running code in place for) the 'Server SIG' need case.

Either that, or we'll just choose to ignore LSB, like, say, 
every Linux ISV does.

Don't get me wrong, the idea of an LSB is sound, but somewhere 
between implementation and adoption, things somehow went 
wrong, and we ended up with ManBearPig.

~spot

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]