LSB-compliant init-scripts as release goal.

[Gustavo Franco]

On 7/9/06, martin f krafft <madduck at debian.org> wrote:
> also sprach Gustavo Franco <gustavorfranco at gmail.com> [2006.07.09.0257 +0200]:
> > I can use my time to do both, and that's what i'm doing.
>
> Of course I did not mean to tell you how to use your time! Sorry.

Ok, no problem.

> > Sometimes it's hard to figure out because i don't like to
> > participate on these Debian "mailing list parties " (aka:
> > flamewars). I don't think there are too many RC bugs, and it seems
> > that the release team schedule looks sane until now. I'm asking
> > for some more work towards Etch not new gratuitous RC bugs.
>
> Sure, but our release schedule is not sane, it needs *a lot* of
> work. And there are too many RC bugs.

I disagree really, comparing with Woody and Sarge, i think we're going well.

> > Anyway, i think you're suggesting to throw out SELinux support and LSB
> > 3.1 compliance for Etch, right ?
>
> No. But LSB compliance does not include init.d scripts, and SELinux
> support is also only a goal, not a blocker.

I don't see LSB compliance nor SELinux support around the corner.

> > Based on Carlos' progress (as i cited in my first message), we
> > should put some effort to deliver a better Etch with the current
> > schedule. I don't think it will be possible to SELinux and
> > probably other pet release goals thought.
>
> Well, then I suggest you start by doing the work and filing bugs
> with patches. When you reach a point where you can say "if all these
> bugs were merged, we would have LSB compliance", then I suppose we
> can see what to do from there and proceed with the NMUs.
>
> Does this sound fair?

Sure, it sounds. Have you noticed that somebody else already started
(if not finnished already) it ? Please read again my first message,
i'm sure you missed some important points.

regards,
-- stratus