Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

[Robert Daniels]

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