| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
| Nope. There's no interest in LSB compliance. LSB isn't a real standard, |
| 6 |
| it's some nonsense dreamed up so that companies like Sun can claim that |
| 7 |
| they are "Linux compliant" (meaning "behaves like RedHat"). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Of course you'll want to read Ulrich Drepper's rant [1] (Red Hat guy) on |
| 10 |
why the LSB sucks. I found it from the LWN announcement of LSB 3.0. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Thanks, |
| 13 |
Donnie |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
1. http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/8511.html |
| 16 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 17 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
iD8DBQFDND3YXVaO67S1rtsRAqs0AJ9KZbvh/R4dXB8bZE+VTNWzO2RqewCeInya |
| 20 |
VyTiDTqQUTf8lT/AlavEw40= |
| 21 |
=gt64 |
| 22 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives