RE: RE: binding module definitions to the DB

I second taggart ... "profile" sounds right :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Taggart [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:17 PM
>To: Gupta, Rita
>Cc: Harring, BrianX D; Wichmann, Mats D; [email protected];
lsb-
>[email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Lsb-test] RE: binding module definitions to the DB
>
>
>"Gupta, Rita" writes...
>
>> Looks good to me. Another suggestion though ...
>> We could add a "product_type" member to the structure=3D20
>> struct lsb_module {
>>    char *name;
>>    unsigned int flag;
>>    char *product_type;
>> };
>> ...and assign a product type corresponding to the LSB_PRODUCT env
>> variable. This would automate the module setting from the environment
>> variable as well. I'm assuming the product_type info is available in
DB.
>
>I object to the use of the word "product" (Rita, I'm not picking on
you,
>you weren't the first to use it, I'm just replying to your message).
>
>Free Software and Open Source projects don't normally have "products",
IMO
>that name assumes a commercial situation. Non-commercial distros and
>application developers aren't going to like supporting something named
>"product" and besides this name is used to refer to a particular spec
that
>the LSB workgroup produces (we don't make "products" either).
>
>How about "type" or "profile" instead? Or "supermetamodulethingy" :)
>
>--
>Matt Taggart        Open Source & Linux Organization R&D
>[email protected]   Hewlett-Packard
>