Re: C++ ...

[Havoc Pennington <hp@redhat.com>]

Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> writes:
> 
> 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.
> 

As a random note, adding libgnome* and libkde* would be a Bad Idea - I
think only the base toolkits (GTK and Qt) should be considered for the
immediate future at least (1-2 years).

Havoc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org