Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2

To: anderson@metrolink.com (Stuart Anderson)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), KIDO@jp.ibm.com (Akio Kido), lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:17:44 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <E14PnOm-0003Vr-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102050951230.78410-100000@trantor.sc.metrolink.com> from "Stuart Anderson" at Feb 05, 2001 09:54:30 AM

> > I dont think the LSB should be mandating many of the listed tools. Some of them
> > are only relevant to developers for example. And why is vi required. vi is not
> > used programatically by another tool so seems outside the lsb remit
> 
> Akio's task was to compare the two documents and find the things that have
> been missed in the LSB. He did a great job on that.

I appreciate that. I just wanted to suggest that we don't take the overlap
and write the application list into the LSB. The functions are much more
important and do need a lot of looking into

Reply to:

References:
- Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
  - From: Stuart Anderson <anderson@metrolink.com>

Prev by Date: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
Next by Date: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
Previous by thread: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
Next by thread: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread