Re: a couple of questions on LSB compliance
> Dan
> Many thanks.Comments are below:
>
>
> On Dec 7, 11:48am in "Re: a couple of ques", Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org> writes:
> >
> > > 1. The FHS has conditions "If the X Window System is present". Does
> > > the LSB mandate presence of the window system (i.e. the support
> > > files /usr/X11R6 etc)?
> >
> > X11R6 will be a required part of a fully LSB compliant system.
> >
> Ok, so any tests related to the X Window System whilst possibly optional
> for FHS conformance will be mandatory for LSB conformance.
>
I think this is a mistake. I believe LSB ought to be a modular
standard; there is fundamentally no need for X on a headless server,
although it may be *desirable*.
A modular standard also makes it much easier to extend into areas that
not everyone may want to use, but which we want to make interoperable.
-hpa
Reply to: