Re: status questions

On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 20:45, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 19:36, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > That should be .. um ... "interesting", given the LSB belief in
> > dependency specification. Are they likely to bless a format that
> > specifically accomodates for non-LSB compliant packages? But it would be
> > worth it if we could do it, I think.
> 
> As I said above, lsb status, eventually. But I'd really love for this to
> be a way to commonly describe package repositories and be able to revise
> the format going into the future for new commonalities and features.
> Maybe the only standard requirement is that it is used.

The LSB's mandate is to standardize existing practices, not to mandate
new unproven practices as standards.  So the real goal should be to get
it used consistently, at which point LSB standardization can happen if
it still makes sense to do so.  Defacto standards ala freedesktop.org
often work just as well, though.

Jeremy