<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:20 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mark.eaton@rsa.com" target="_blank">mark.eaton@rsa.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi, I’ve been using the LSB SDK to develop our crypto toolkits on across the various platforms for a number of years, but lately we have had comments from source customers that they are unable to obtain the SDK to use. The download page on the website has no links to the actual packages and if by some change you find a link to the ftp site it always gives temporarily unavailable messages. This combined with the fact that the lsbcc shipped with the latest versions of Ubuntu doesn’t actually work with the versions of gcc they ship (I’m unsure of other distro’s but it seems to be a common problem) means that people can’t actually use the LSB for development.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Is this a known issue? And is it something that will be fixed?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Our team is trying to support approximately 50 platforms and the LSB helps tremendously by allowing us to only build a 32 and a 64 bit linux package but at this point I can’t see any option but to move back to trying to build packages for Redhat, SuSE and Ubuntu separately.</p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It's a known issue on several levels.</div><div><br></div><div>All LF servers were taken offline after it was discovered that the breakin which caused <a href="http://kernel.org">kernel.org</a> to be taken down had also affected some or all Linux Foundation servers. Progress in restoring these has been, from an outsider view, agonizingly slow - it's well over two months now - and in particular the LSB infrastructure is largely not back.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The above is fact, what many of us not employed by LF or part of the recovery process are finding increasingly unacceptable is there's absolutely no information forthcoming, occasionally a ping will be responded to with "we're working on it" or "soon" which leads to nothing - well, we've gotten the mailing lists back. Since we who are not given information don't have any, the conclusion is starting to grow that things like package repositories and version control branches just won't ever come back.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The other level is the g++ vs. lsbcc issue. In general, since lsbcc is just a wrapper which calls gcc, there's no issue which version of gcc is used, except in a few minor cases, for example at one point the default on the internal hash format changing caused something lsbcc had to work around to enable compatible behavior transparently.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The issue comes in with C++; each LSB version specifies the behavior of a particular g++ version, and to match the library has to include a frozen snapshot of c++ headers (this is in a separate package, lsb-build-c++, so that it can have the exact license of the upstream headers), and as g++ evolves - in particular as it becomes more strict, these headers end up becoming incompatible - that's the case at the moment, but with all the infrastructure offline and all work stopped as a result, there's no possibility of fixing it.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>So I don't have any really good advice for you at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>