Re: X and LSB
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current wrote:
> No, I'm discussing a point. But I'll respell out what I think should
> happen again, because I think it's time to cut through the discussion
> and restate my position on X again.
> Separating off an X layer should be done in the LSB.
> If the layer is separate, it can then include more. If it includes
> more, ISVs who need X will be more satisfied with the result.
> LSB will "test" conditions, not impose required packages (in my
> understanding), so if it tests for X, let it test for X, not just a
> subset of X (a few libs).
> Call it whatever you want, a layer, or a level.
> But to require part of X to satisfy some ISV requests is not going far
> enough to help them significantly. An ISV that needs X will still have
> to find a way to test for X at that point.
> And, by subset of X, the LSB is going a bit far in the countless
> situations that X is not needed. Database servers, routers, and
> countless applications from embedded to massive number crunchers do not
> require X.
Okay, time to weigh in.
_I'll_ restate your position, and you can tell me if I've got it right.
1) X (libraries, components, servers) should not be part of the LSB "base"
2) If X is to be part of the spec, it should be a "level" of the spec,
implying that LSB would have different "flavors". The "base" spec would
_not_ include X.
Right so far?
And there seem to be two major rationale for your position here:
1) Not all Linux installations (servers, routers, et al) need X.
(Presumably implying that some distros shouldn't have to sacrifice being
LSB compliant because the LSB base spec may require X components.)
2) Including X leads to "bloating" of the size of Linux.
Still on track?
Now here are some questions for you.
1) Why must the spec be written so that it covers all possible uses or
distros? If your answer is that is shouldn't be, then please define what
precise uses you think the spec should be written for.
2) Why shouldn't the spec be written to (at least in part) cater to the
preferences of the companies/entities who sell/ship/produce the most
2a) If not written to cater to the preferences of the major distros, then
to whose preferences should we cater? (Remember, logic has little to do
with this. Most of what you've written comes down to opinion and belief.
So "preference" is the right word in the above question.)
3) Why must the spec be built solely on what you/we think is most
3a) Why is "logic" more important than "existing practice"? (The answer to
this question is _not_ obvious. We all value good logic, but what makes
logic more important in _this_ case?)
4) Why is it important to keep the size of the "base" LSB compliant distro
4a) What do you believe _should_ be the target size of the LSB compliant
distro? (No nebulous answers, here. If you're going to gripe about size,
you need to have a definite target range in mind to be able so say, "This
is too big, and that's too small.")
5) Beyond size and application (as above) what is the problem with having
LSB specify that base X libraries be installed?
(FWIW, I'm a command line guy and only grudgingly use X.)
Also, ease up on the LSB guys unless you want to do their job.
Paul M. Foster
Suncoast Linux Users Group (SLUG)
(for what it's worth)