2014-04-26 11:24 GMT+02:00 Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org>:
Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what is
> specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
> correctly. We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and
> explicitly say we don't care for future releases.
So shouldn't redhat-lsb or some subpackage be the one that pull that
part ?
That's a clean solution for the LSB concern, but not for the larger point.
(Honestly this is more a matter of reinforcing the principle than finding a
perfect solution for that specific file.)
And it's not only commercial software; private projects that make
no
> sense to publish (such as a company's web site) are equally affected
> such changes. Simply spoken, if we care only about package in Fedora,
> we are building an appliance; if we want to build an operating system,
> we do need to cater for software not included directly in the repo.
Then how can we signal to people that they need to update those
packages ?
My opinion is that *in most cases* this is just asking the wrong question;
we shouldn't *need* to signal that. When old applications correctly using
the API of $os_name stops working, your product is in a very practical
sense *no longer $os_name*.
Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that
will result into bitrot if no one really test.
The principled answer to this is to have a comprehensive automated test
suite... which, unfortunately, we don't have.
Mirek