> The LSB goal is not really any further than
>
> o libc symbols are this
> o ELF format is this
> o libc structures are these
> o Binary calling format
> o Feed a script to this program to add it to init scripts
> o Basic X11 libraries
>
> at the moment.
Wait, stop here. I had a talk with the Slackware people at Linux World
this past Feberuary about the LSB. That was where I heard some Storm
Linux (or maybe it was someone else... doesn't really matter) talk about
the LSB for the first time. Being a Slack-head who keeps his head buried
in BSD init scripts and compiling everything compulsively, I ran to the
Slackware booth to hear what they had to say about it. Aparantly,
Slackware had opted out of participating because of, IIRC, two points:
1) The "feed a script to this program" was designed to work with SYSV
style init scripts and there was fear of vendors starting to design
programs that only took into account SYSV style of initialization. VMWare
has already done this. This is aproblem because it makes a standard out
of a preference. What if the LSB called for all X11 window managers to be
GNOME and KDE running on top of Enlightenment? We'd have lots of people
talking about how the standard violates their preferences. Making this
kind of choice will only point vendors (who think they're doing a favor by
complying with the standard!) at targetting their software for a certain
type of Linux user. This will decrease their business and it work toward
a more closed free software environment.
2) The LSB endorses the Linux Filesystem Standard Hirearchy. Few people I
know adhere to this, and I myself don't like it. Again this is an issue
of preference; I think it makes more sense to run
/usr/local/enlightenment/bin/enlightenment than
/usr/local/bin/enlightenment. This way, I install all of the software I
compile into /usr/local/$(application name), and copy the shared libs to
/usr/local/lib. This way, 'ls /usr/local' give a complete view of what I
have installed, no package manager necessary.
Granted, I have never read the LFSH, or anything by the LSB. Like I said,
this is what I remember discussing at Linux World. However, I find both
of these serious enough to warrant throwing out the LSB and I hope Pat
continues to stay out of it until they are dealt with. It's not a
political or personal thing; it's just the way I like my system.
Ross Vandegrift
coolio@tmbg.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST