| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:22 -0500 |
| 3 |
Alec Berryman <alec@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:59, Spider wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Shouldn't system be as close to a POSIX compliant Unix as possible? |
| 7 |
> > Or perhaps LSB? If others want minimalism, let them create their |
| 8 |
> > own profiles?(Its not difficult. really). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Some interesting programs I found under the "Commands & Utilities" |
| 11 |
> section of the LSB |
| 12 |
> (http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB.html#TOCC |
| 13 |
> OMMAND): |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> crontab |
| 16 |
> egrep & fgrep |
| 17 |
> lpr |
| 18 |
> make |
| 19 |
> man |
| 20 |
> rsync |
| 21 |
> tar |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Note that the LSB does not include bzip. |
| 24 |
No, but portage does in any case ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But, Am I the only one who sees an advantage in moving the default |
| 27 |
profiles to LSB compliance, and providing an alternated "light" one for |
| 28 |
the cases that want them? (heck, if you dislike dhcpcd I'm pretty sure |
| 29 |
you don't want the bloat of glibc either, go for uclibc. ;) but sarcasm |
| 30 |
aside, the suggestion is serious. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
//Spider |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
begin .signature |
| 38 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 39 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 40 |
end |
Archives