Perhaps there should only be 3 layers then, but I dont really beleive in a "cover everything at once" standard.
//Mats Loman On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Philip Rackus wrote: > I personally believe that layering the LSB is a **good thing**, however > (there is > always a however) the trap is that if you create to many layers, the possible > combinations of layers means that you don't have a standard at all, and your > back > to square one. Layering can work if it is kept to two or three layers at > most. > > Phil > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Greg Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We should have a base LSB spec which excludes X to let handhelds and > > > > other > > > > embedded applications be LSB compliant. > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > Won't the handhelds use X to draw to the display? > > > > > > Gregory Hayes > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps its a good idea to have a number of standard packets instead of > > one standard base. I meand LSB - level 1 may include the very basic set > > ( maybe just kernel and libc + some other very lowlevel stuff ). Level 2 > > adds a little more and so on. > > > > Then when a software developer can look too the specs and decide wich > > level his application reuires. The linux distributors can have options in > > their installation to install up to a certain level. > > > > Well this is just a thougth.... > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
