Re: Questions about spec
> A lot of peripheral libraries (ncurses, etc.) seem to be left out of
> the spec.
Ncurses is supposed to be in there (and yes, Alan, this is the C
ncurses not the C++ ncurses :-)). The most up to date list, as far as
I know, is at http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/19991212.html - anyone
have a clear idea where in the spec I should put this? I guess into
the database (which is an area which I haven't done much with yet).
> I noticed that the libraries specified in the spec are named things
> like libX11.lsb.6
Again see http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/19991212.html
Any volunteers to write up rationale for this decision for inclusion
in the LSB rationale (we don't have a formal policy about how/whether
to write rationale but various bits of the spec already have sections
labelled "rationale" or similar in intent and there seems to be
interest in including it).
> Are we asking for trouble by not requiring permissions for directories
> in FHS 2.x to be compliant?
Permissions are already discussed in
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/fhs.html
I can't tell whether you are disagreeing with that section or whether
you just hadn't found it yet.
> In other words, give instructions on what an ISV must do in order to
> provide a KDE or GNOME application
I really really think we want to leave this to the KDE and GNOME
projects (in some cases there is a spec which works for both KDE and
GNOME; in others it will be one or the other). Really. Alan's idea
for having some formal way for KDE, GNOME, and/or other such subgroups
to submit specs for ratification (or whatever form that is going to
take) seems like a promising way to approach this.
Reply to: