[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl wrote:

> IM(NSH)O the LSB is here to provide a platform so each application builder
> can start off and know what they may expect on a LSB complaint system
> when they add their software to it.

No, i don't agree.

No ISV should feel that "every dependacy has been included in the LSB"

The LSB should be a base for self contained binaries, maybe, but not an
all enclusive list of common dependancies.

Dependancy handling is a matter of package installation accounting.  This
may be outlined by the LSB.... /var/pkg?  Dunno, but it's an accounting

> The potentail parties that would benifit from the LSB would write 9 out of
> 10 applications that will be larger and graphical oriented. So excluding X
> from the LSB spec would make the objective defined above nearly
> impossible or unusable and therefor a waste of time.

Again, no.  It's not a waste of time to say "Look to see if package X is
installed by checking /var/pkg/whatever files."  That's the structure that
may need defining.  That is something the LSB can do.

Making X a base application because it's "a common depencancy" is not
going to solve the problem any more than simply laying out a standard for
tracking packages.

Adding X just adds to the bloat of the base.  It opens the door too much
for "Well, almost everything now uses KDE or GNOME, that should be base
too" etc etc etc... Don't go there.  Just say no.  This is your brain..
This is your brain on X... ... uh.. wait... 

I still don't see why X should be "base" because it's commonly used, when
at best it can be discribed as "middleware."

Reply to: