H Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this is a mistake. I believe LSB ought to be a modular > standard; there is fundamentally no need for X on a headless server, > although it may be *desirable*.
Well, there is actually no need for X on any server or client. The point is that if a distribution is LSB compliant, then everyone can count on having X installed on the system. Some minimal X support is required if you want to use X remotely. The LSB has to choose some minimal set, and everyone has agreed (until now) that X should be in that set. > A modular standard also makes it much easier to extend into areas that > not everyone may want to use, but which we want to make interoperable. X11R6 is less than 100MB of disk space. I disagree that X should be modularized out. This isn't that controversial, but I'll ask the distributions and vendors to be certain. Also, we do have the option of making X optional (a mistake, which while technically correct, has a number of disadvantages), but still part of the main LSB specification. - Dan
