[lsb-futures] [lsb-discuss] Qt libs ... included in the kernel 2.6 ... Why still blocked?
tytso at mit.edu
Fri Nov 7 11:55:05 PST 2003
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:53:49PM +0100, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> If you to maintain kernel recompilation between a group of hackers,
> this is your mind, and probably what you want.
> I suppose and hope that the Linux Kernel re-compilation may be available
> also to childrens, yes childrens, (I 7-years children comment to me time
> ... however, to everyone and to the masses.
Now you're going very far afield from the topic at hand. At this
point this has nothing at all to do with the goals of the Linux
Why though do you assume that children and secretary will compile
their own kernel? That takes far more technical skill to be able to
choose the correct compilation options (or else otherwise the kernel
will fail to build), that it's very unlikely that this will ever be a
Children, secretaries, civil engineers, don't have to compile their
own Solaris kernels. Or their own Windows kernels. Or their own Mac
OS X kernels. And they have no need or interest to do so. They just
want to get work done, not to futz with kernel compilation options.
So they will use precompiled kernels from distrubtions, with
optionally loaded modules and run-time configuration tuning knobs in
/proc/sys. That's what is happening to day, and arguably this is a
much better approach than trying to assume that people will be use GUI
kernel configuration tools.
> The program "qtconf.cc" needs a library that does not belong to LSB.
> More easy for you?
> What you replay?
Being able to compile a kernel from scratch isn't a requirement
for the LSB-defined subset. Being able to run interesting
applications like TurboTax, Quicken, etc. is part of the LSB goal.
(This is not to say that you can't compile a kernel on a
LSB-ceritified distribution; but that doing so may require usage of
programs that are not defined in the LSB defined subset.)
> ... Probably my posting will not have a future and things will remain
> like before. But my point was clear! :-) ... very clear ;-)
You've made it very clear that (a) you have some very strange ideas of
what you think children and secretaries might want to do, and (b) you
have demonstrated that you have no idea what the goals of LSB are.
More information about the lsb-discuss