Re: a couple of questions on LSB compliance
H Peter Anvin <email@example.com> writes:
> 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*.
Well, there is actually no need for X on any server or client. The
point is that if a distribution is LSB compliant, then everyone can
count on having X installed on the system. Some minimal X support is
required if you want to use X remotely.
The LSB has to choose some minimal set, and everyone has agreed (until
now) that X should be in that set.
> 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.
X11R6 is less than 100MB of disk space. I disagree that X should be
modularized out. This isn't that controversial, but I'll ask the
distributions and vendors to be certain.
Also, we do have the option of making X optional (a mistake, which
while technically correct, has a number of disadvantages), but still
part of the main LSB specification.