Re: Questions about spec
> Q1. A lot of peripheral libraries (ncurses, etc.) seem to be left
> out of the
ncurses we cant really do yet because the C++ compiler ABI isnt solid
until gcc 3.0
> non-core libraries. Granted they are often client-centric
> programs, but is
We need to do some
readline
ncurses
slang
termcap
off my head are relevant.
> Q3. Are we asking for trouble by not requiring permissions for
> directories in FHS 2.x to be compliant?
Permissions depend on site security policies. Suppose I want my printing to
be group only. The FHS cannot be allowed to subvert that.
Applications also have to handle the error case anyway!
> ISVs must either provide the latest KDE/GNOME libraries that are
> required for their app to run, or make their application backward
> compatible with versions X.X so that the latest libraries are not required).
I owe the LSB folks a draft proposal for sub groups. The idea being that
we could take an open API and the folks who are involved in it and create
an IETF style way for them to standardise it. So the KDE team would standardise
KDE subject to overall review, the GNOME team do Gnome, Python folks Python
and other interested parties can do other libraries.
The proposals for structural tweaking in the LSB also kind of upstaged the
plan and if anything lay a good framework for it.
In short:
o) We want the people who know the item to do the work
o) We want the people who care about it to do the work
That is best done by putting power back into those communities subject to
overall sanity guidelines.
Alan
Reply to: