On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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. > > > > I think POSIX did it very well: create a set of options. Then define > option groups as so-called profiles. To be compliant with a specific > profile you have to support all the options that constitute that > profile. > > However, I would be *much* happier putting this discussion off until we > have one published and preferrably accepted standard. Time is running > out, quickly. > > -hpa > The fact that time is running is a good arguemnt for splitting the LSB into layers so that you can find acceptance for a smaller part first and you have a much better defined goal to work towared. When layer 1 is defined, move on to the next layer and so on. //Mats Loman
