On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote: <snip lots of stuff I agree with> > > Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain > non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific > the LSB gets, the less respect many people will have for it. Specific > in software over the true base system being the issue. > The LSB, to my mind, is too extensive. I share the concern over RPM. While RPM is not absolutely required by the LSB, it is quite clearly favored; this is a problem. I don't have the understanding to say whether other items in the LSB Core spec are needed/useful, but they certainly look extensive. The LSB Desktop spec is worse. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it -requires- the presence of GTK, Qt3, AND Qt4. This is antithetical to construction of a lean system. I understand the inclusion of selected fd.o specs and software, but this document simply goes to far. I see little need to go much further than the POSIX specification and the FHS.
The FHS could do with some revision, but it at least tries to stay reasonable. -- Robert Daniels -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
