On 10/25/09 11:47 PM, "Kirk Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does such an effort distract from LSB? It's orthogonal to it, but separate. LSB details where such an animal would live, the universal binary idea is what you're delivering. I think that universal binaries would simplify things (cf all the stupidity about /lib vs /lib64) a lot, but then you get the bitching about "why does this app take up so much more space than application Y". I'd take a close look at the history of fat binaries on Mac OS and on SVID systems to get a sense of what will happen with this. If you can do it, it's a good thing, but it has to be consistently applied and managed. Apple did a fairly good job, but only by virtue of having almost complete control over the development and deployment process by making PackageManager, which everybody uses by default. > To that point, what do listers > think about LSB? Mostly to swear at large software vendors for not following it, and thus making their applications depend on specific distribution quirks. If the big players (*cough* Oracle, IBM, Novell *cough*) would follow it strictly, then I think we'd have a better chance of it taking root and we would have less of the "must be running version XX.yy of distribution ZZ" BS than we have. > PS> We have more than a casual interest in the future of LSB, since we > currently offer products that ship in LSB form. Its not clear the the > industry has or ever will fully embrace it. Only because we let them get away with it. > If not LSB, what chance does > something like this have? Slightly better, in that this lets them make fewer different packages which is slightly cheaper. LSB doesn't have an immediately visible cost effect; it's just another requirement that has to be met. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
