On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 think it's true that RPM is favored. I believe RPM was just a fully implemented package manager used on more than a few systems at the time the LSB was written. See more background here: http://www.linux.com/feature/59502 > 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. I think you're overlooking the purpose of the LSB. It has nothing to do with being a lean system. It has to do with providing a standard set of interfaces for 3rd parties to use. What if a company wants to provide a proprietary GUI app for their hardware? What toolkit are they allowed to use and have it work on Linux systems? If this doesn't sound like the kind of scenario you're interested in, then it's not worth trying to be LSB compliant. However, the need does exist, and there are definitely big players who would benefit from the LSB. Think about distributing your software that "works with RHEL x, RHEL y, SuSE z, ..." vs. "works with LSB 3.2.0". In the context of *LFS, I don't think it really makes any sense to pursue the LSB. I don't think anyone here has more than a curious interest in supporting these scenarios. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
