Why don’t you sugest to include SDL in the Linux Standard Base?
I think that if SDL is present in LSB, linux will gain power in
multimedia/entertainment against others plataforms.–
If there is no wind, row.
– Polish proverb
Technically LSB already addresses this issue. If the SDL is installed
as part of a distribution, via a package management system, it will
live in the /usr tree, otherwise if it is installed by source or othermeans
then in /usr/local.
The LSB tries not to specify what software all linuxen are to have,
rather it tries specify best practices for interoperability between them.
A few vital libraries like libc are the rare exceptions, and there it
is more the API that matters than the version. So guess what LSB does 
Sam & friends have already provided all the tools one needs to discover
where the includes and libraries reside through sdl-config. And the SDL
plays nicely with the LSB already.
So to answer the question, because there is no need.On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 03:07:42PM -0300, Danny Angelo Carminati Grein wrote:
Why don’t you sugest to include SDL in the Linux Standard Base?
–
David J. Goehrig dave at cthulhu-burger.org
All reports, excluding those of historical fact, may be considered speculative.
- a faceless Compaq disclaimer