Hi, (please forgive for the poor english) I have see all the discussion about the layered vs the broad specification and I think that there are good arguments pro and cons.
A single specification assures that everyone knows what is lsb compliance. A layered specification permits to handle special cases for example little distributions, or distribution that want to customize high level (such as x windows or, in the future, desktop or window manager level). In my opinion, there are other interesting things in that approach, it is conceptually better and permits a layered work (although I think it is allready done in practice). I think there is a simple way to conciliate the two approaches : there would be a LSB compliance, with the broader scope, and layer compliance (like core-lsb, X-lsb, window manager-lsb...), compliance with a layer assuming that compliance with lower layer is met. This doesn't rule out the confusion problem, but allows two different approaches in doing the specification : top-down : you can specify the lsb (highest layer) compliance first in order to avoid infinite discussion on where a layer stop, and when this work is done define the layers in order to deal with the special cases concerned with this issue. (personal opinion : I think that it would fit better in the official line of lsb). bottom-up : you can divide the work to produce low layer specification more rapidely (don't know if it's a real argument as the core could be the most difficult thing to specify) and build on top of existing layer. (other personal opinion : I think the division of the tasks in the lsb teams are appriximately in accordance with the layered model but as I am only a mailing list observer I don't really know). Pat
