This looks good! This is the kind of standard I was personaly looking for in the LSB. It looks at linux froma very different perspective (admins, embedded system builders/designers, mini distro's).
I think the BUILD level 2 can in fact result in the "Linux Core"(or "LSB Core"?) component/level/profile (with or without the X libs). Robert: Keep me/us up to date! Thanks, -- Vincent de Lau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert W. Current Jr. Ph.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Core/Layer vs. GUI > > > Hi, > > Looks like this whole discussion process has just become > completely counter-productive. Both the "there should be a > core/layer" > people and the "We just need to get the spec done ASAP for > the ISV's who > will use it" people are not coming to an agreement. > > So, I concede that if the LSB developers wish to define a useful > API for ISV's, that is a noble goal, and I do not wish to > stand in their > way any longer. I think the continued discussion of why it > should be done > another way is not going to foster any progress. > > Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the LSB > project is a > good project, but not the only way of doing things. I have drafted an > early proposal for another project, that may in fact > complement the LSB > upon completion. Anyone interested is welcome to join, discuss, etc > Hopefully, this will allow the LSB project to continue on > it's own course, > and develop a useable spec for software developers sometime > soon, and take > some of the conflict out of this discussion. > > DRAFT: (not final) > http://rob.current.nu/build/ > > An x86 branch of BUILD has begun, and the ETA of Level 1 is > approximately one month, with Level 2 following shortly > afterwards. There > are currently several people willing to work on this project, > and there > has been some (un-named) interest from some hardware vendors. > > I'd prefer not to make it "public" (as in SlashDot or FreshMeat) > until some of the structure (mailing lists, hosting, etc), and legal > (Trademark terms, technical wording of draft) issues are sorted out. > > Hopefully, this will back some of the pressure off of this > discussion ;-) > > Rob C.
