> A lot of peripheral libraries (ncurses, etc.) seem to be left out of > the spec.
Ncurses is supposed to be in there (and yes, Alan, this is the C ncurses not the C++ ncurses :-)). The most up to date list, as far as I know, is at http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/19991212.html - anyone have a clear idea where in the spec I should put this? I guess into the database (which is an area which I haven't done much with yet). > I noticed that the libraries specified in the spec are named things > like libX11.lsb.6 Again see http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/19991212.html Any volunteers to write up rationale for this decision for inclusion in the LSB rationale (we don't have a formal policy about how/whether to write rationale but various bits of the spec already have sections labelled "rationale" or similar in intent and there seems to be interest in including it). > Are we asking for trouble by not requiring permissions for directories > in FHS 2.x to be compliant? Permissions are already discussed in http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/fhs.html I can't tell whether you are disagreeing with that section or whether you just hadn't found it yet. > In other words, give instructions on what an ISV must do in order to > provide a KDE or GNOME application I really really think we want to leave this to the KDE and GNOME projects (in some cases there is a spec which works for both KDE and GNOME; in others it will be one or the other). Really. Alan's idea for having some formal way for KDE, GNOME, and/or other such subgroups to submit specs for ratification (or whatever form that is going to take) seems like a promising way to approach this.
