Re: Wake Up and Smell the Coffee It's Not 1970!
Perhaps there should only be 3 layers then, but I dont really beleive in a
"cover everything at once" standard.
//Mats Loman
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Philip Rackus wrote:
> I personally believe that layering the LSB is a **good thing**, however (there is
> always a however) the trap is that if you create to many layers, the possible
> combinations of layers means that you don't have a standard at all, and your back
> to square one. Layering can work if it is kept to two or three layers at most.
>
> Phil
>
> mats.loman@home.se wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Greg Hayes wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > We should have a base LSB spec which excludes X to let handhelds and other
> > > > embedded applications be LSB compliant.
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > >
> > > Won't the handhelds use X to draw to the display?
> > >
> > > Gregory Hayes
> > > -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps its a good idea to have a number of standard packets instead of
> > one standard base. I meand LSB - level 1 may include the very basic set
> > ( maybe just kernel and libc + some other very lowlevel stuff ). Level 2
> > adds a little more and so on.
> >
> > Then when a software developer can look too the specs and decide wich
> > level his application reuires. The linux distributors can have options in
> > their installation to install up to a certain level.
> >
> > Well this is just a thougth....
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
>
>
Reply to: