Re: C++ ...
[Trimmed debian-devel from the CC list]
On Apr 22, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:13:45PM -0400, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> >
> > just that right not, KDE is not a part of the LSB, so LSB compliant
>
> s/not/now/
If the LSB does define additional libraries, it might be worthwhile to
bundle them in optional subparts of the LSB. For example, if GNOME 2
were defined in the LSB, packages requiring GNOME 2 might depend on
lsb-gnome2. Similarly, KDE 3 might be fulfilled by lsb-kde3 on an
LSB-compliant system.
My concern is that the LSB not get overloaded with superfluous
facilities. So far, it has been a reasonable subset (although the
inclusion of the X libraries in the core standard may be a little on
the way to bloat), but adding every free toolkit out there to it will
lead to massive bloat {Debian's lsb package already pulls in a large
number of packages as it is, without pulling in all of GNOME and KDE
too} unless some sort of modularization is pursued.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Instructor and Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi
208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: