On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:
> If one defines the LSB standard as encompassing only the minimum of what is
> required for Linux to be a usable OS, that misses one of LSB's important
> goals: To make it possible for all major applications to run on all
> LSB-compliant distributions of Linux. This isn't an academic exercise - it
> is a very pragmatic approach to solving the business problems of having
> divergent distributions.
Again, that approch is flawed in that it makes the LSB the 'all inclusive'
set of basic software, which will endlessly expand.
How does making the LSB a fundemental building block for adding software
on top of miss the goal?
Unless your creating a "dependancy list" and throwing everything,
including the kitchen sink, into the LSB, you will never meet that goal by
including more and more stuff.
It is nessessary to define the structure for adding software, but not
require that software be added.
Did I miss something, is the LSB all about "a big dependancy list" now,
where every thing that ever is considered a dependancy for another
application should be included in the LSB?
I though the B still meant base... not bloat.
- Re: RFC
- From: Stuart Anderson <email@example.com>
- Re: RFC
- From: Nicholas Petreley <firstname.lastname@example.org>