Sorry to come late to this discussion and break fedora-devel
ML threading, as I am working from the web archive (I had
tossed the underlying pieces already)
Dan Horák at Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:16:00 +0100:
IMHO LSB Core conformance should be required in minimal
install
Sadly, as a long time participant in the LSB process, I would
offer that there is not a well defined subset such as 'LSB
Core' (and adjuncts or extensions such as: 'LSB Desktop', 'LSB
Mobile Device', 'LSB Headless') are not a way that the LSB
decided to go in 4.0 initial (the next scheduled release, due
out later this year). This is in part from a lack of
developer mass and consensus.
LSB has a weekly conference call open to all contributors to
the LSB; its mailing list is open as are its archives {some
process happens 'out of sight' which is out of scope here}.
Mats Wichmann and I have been at OLS, and the LSB BOFH or
presentation for the last few years has drawn few attendees,
and sadly either just the 'usual suspects' or people looking
for a seat in a reasonably empty and quiet presentation room
;)
archive:
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss
subscription:
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
Earlier, Peter Robinson at Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:53:21 +0000
For some reason redhat-lsb pulls in qt, qt-X11 and qt3.
redhat-lsb is certainly something you'd probably want in a
server environment but no idea why it would need qt
This being an 'redhat-lsb' lsb in the 3.x series.
LSB 4 is in release testing, and 'slops' all sorts of 'goop'
in to a 'conformant' installation: sound, printing, X, and GUI
widget sets, ... and more, in. The 'use case' was that the
ISV's needed each to be predictably present.
I predict that when LSB 4.0 releases, there will be much
wailing and gnashing of teeth, because no-one from Fedora has
'been at the table' arguing (and getting the consensus and
running code in place for) the 'Server SIG' need case.
A year ago, and periodically, lone voices contributors to the
LSB in the server wilderness, cry out:
Enough to the LSB
but no-one steps up to suggest the subset [and then to do the
repackaging (breaking off the one GUI dep that 'Requires in
much unwanted (in a server environment) GUI 'goop') in support
within the distributions] to elide such cruft not wanted in a
'server' environment.
LSB is willing and interested in having a sensible discussion,
and reaching specification of such a 'subset'; this seems like
a natural for people in a Fedora Server SIG to collaborate and
participate with this 'upstream' at LSB.
In the weekly conference call today, it was clear that such an
effort do advance a rational subset would be entertained (not
in the initial 4.0, probably -- it is past feature freeze
there, but later in that series)
Please join in.
-- Russ herrold
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
