[Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Jim Kingdon]

> the draft seems to specify enough (complete with strfry, the
> standardization of which can surely serve no other purpose) to . . .

Not to distract people from the main flamewar, but I've submitted this
one as a bug in the LSB:
http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414

To make a long story short, in the early days of the LSB there was
often a fair bit of confusion/randomness about which GNU extensions to
include and which ones not.  Some of this has been cleaned up
(e.g. command options - a lot were deprecated in LSB 1.3 and removed
in 1.9), but other parts haven't gotten as much attention.