On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current Jr. Ph.D. wrote:
> Again, that approch is flawed in that it makes the LSB the 'all inclusive'
> set of basic software, which will endlessly expand.
What the LSB covers will grow over time. The LSB puts a focus on stability of
the components it specifies. One way of measuring this is to evaluate a
written specifcation, and the corresponding test suite. Ideally, these would
be requirmed before something could be included, but right now, that means
we couldn't include much at all, so we are working to try and catch up on
Having a requirment on stability should keep the LSB from growing unbounded.
> 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?
Our plan it for there to exist an LSB 1.0 package upon which applications
can depend (using whatever dependency mechanism is choosen for packages).
The existance of this package indicates that all of the things specified in
LSB 1.0 are present.
How they get there is irrelevent.
We are trying to avoid just adding stuff becasue something depends on it.
The stability requirment rules out a lot of things. We have been examining
a lot of software to see what it and isn't really being used. We use the
results of this to help guide what would be useful to include, and what
would only have minimal benefit.
Stuart R. Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
4711 North Powerline Road 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.938.0283 voice: 803.951.3630
fax: 954.938.1982 SkyTel: 800.405.3401
- Re: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current Jr. Ph.D." <email@example.com>