On 04/05/2014 04:26 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:00:40PM -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 04/02/2014 07:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:00:24AM -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Hi,
On 03/26/2014 06:55 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Hello,
after initial discussion on the -packaging list (see http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2014-02/msg00136.html) and incorporating some of the feedback we would like to introduce the attached openSUSE Enhancement Proposal about creating a safe namspace of system user and group names. Further comments and reviews would be appreciated.
Full text of the OSEP (currently maintained at https://github.com/lnussel/osep_opensuse_usernames/blob/master/opensuse_user...):
This is a cross distribution problem and I do not think we should just go it alone without at least speaking with other distros. Has anyone contacted Fedora and or Debian to see if we can find a common solution?
Coincidentally the LSB working group just had a face to face meeting at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit last week and we decided that after the release of the LSB 5.0 specification we (the LSB work group) want to shift our focus and become the place where distributions can discuss such problems and come to an agreement for Linux as a platform rather than every distro implementing their own solution.
So, trying to take over the role that freedesktop.org currently has? :)
Hmm, not really, I think. Stuff that freedesktop.org has done has found it's way into the LSB, see xdg-utils for example. But I can see where there would be a potential overlap with freedesktop.org and that's certainly worth a discussion (not on this list of course) ;)
The LSB working group is still interested in verification though, while freedesktop.org provides documentation without testing or a pledge by distributions to actually implement the stuff that's on freedesktop.org. So there is a bit of a different angle.
Yes, but the overlap is "interesting". Where would a group of developers go if they wanted to create something new that spans distros / desktop environments? Right now it's been freedesktop, and then after everyone agrees, the LSB could codify it. But now, the LSB could be the place to do this work.
So, how is someone supposed to know where to go? How will you ensure that duplicate things don't happen? How will you get one group to agree to the other group's differences if the same thing happens in 2 places in different ways?
And finally, why is the LSB doing this at all? What need are you thinking needs to be fufilled that was "broken"?
That's a _really_ big change for LSB,
Yes it is.
was this announced anywhere?
We are still working on that part. There is an executive summary of the LSB meeting here: https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Plenary_2014#Meeting_Minutes
Nice, so the 5.x spec is the last of it's kind, that's great to see finally happen. But why not just disolve the group entirely? There's no need to keep on meeting to do things that are already handled in other areas (i.e. freedesktop) in order to just continue to do things.
Still the wrong list, but lets just keep going, I guess. Well fdo (freedesktop.org) by name would potentially be ignored/disqualified for certain things because they are not desktop related. For the most part I'd say that people do not necessarily expect fdo to work on things that are outside the desktop area. Secondly, even without a formal standard there are things we discussed at the LSB meeting that are not part of fdo, today. Although, I see principally no reason that there could not be a merging of efforts. But it is not immediately obvious what we would do with the the tests, once they are freed from the certification framework, LTP might be a good home, and how distributions can claim support for a certain feature that happens to be on fdo. For example systemd was on fdo long before distributions made the decision to use it, and Debian could just as well have decided to not use systemd, obviously the decision was rather close. Thus, fdo does not, today, provide an infrastructure where people can find a feature and then figure out what distribution actually supports the particular implementation. Thus fdo provides a colection of projects/upstream code, but it is not necessarily obvious that a given project gets picked up by the distributions just because it is on fdo. With the LSB standard (as in formal standard) approach that was fairly obvious, if it's in the LSB and a distro is LSB certified than all the features are there. In the new approach to LSB this is not immediately obvious. But there are discussions of having some kind of "pledge" system, i.e. a way for distros to "register", for lack of a better word, the features they implement. This is still valuable information for ISVs. This could certainly become an aspect of fdo, I have no problem with that. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead Public Cloud Architect rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org