Re: Developing for LSB

On Sunday 22 June 2003 18:08, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> Apologies for the slow reply. I think its probably better that we
> standardise the output of individual options -i, -d, -r, -c, etc
> (saying one line of output per option) rather than -s.  That way we
> don't need to worry about the escaping of spaces, and its easier to
> extend later (just add another option) - eg 2.0 will probably need to
> support displaying which modules are supported.

I don't mind this, but it does require changes to lsb_release.  All my current 
proposal does is add the the spec what is already implemented.  Either way 
I'm happy (actually I prefer each it on each line as you suggest), I just 
wanted to make sure you realised that changes to lsb_release wouldn't be 
required for the first option.

Cheers,

-- 
Tom Howard

Yahoo: bjandtomau
ICQ: 270792190