[cgl_discussion] Something we might be able to work on relati ng the LSB

Lynch, Rusty rusty.lynch at intel.com
Fri Sep 6 11:30:00 PDT 2002


Yea, the language is messed up.  Let me try again:

Fact #1: The stock Linux 2.4.x kernels fail a bunch of LSB validation test.
This has been document by LSB.
Fact #2: Red Hat (via an Alan Cox patch) has fixed a bunch of these
failures.

If we wanted too, we could create a patch that fixes various LSB failures
(just like Red Hat did.)  I'm just thinking out loud.

	-rusty

-----Original Message-----
From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Rusty Lynch
Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Something we might be able to work on
relating the LSB


On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 09:14, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> Some of our validation engineers have been comparing the LSB validation
> suite results for stock Linux 2.4.18 kernels with the integrated set of
CGLE
> patches applied to the results of the LSB suites run on a RedHat 7.3
> distribution.  There are a lot of failures that have been documented by
LSB
> where RedHat has fixed with a big Alan Cox patch.
>  
> Since we are wording our requirements such that and CGLE work will not
> "break" LSB compliance, then we are not obligated to work on patches to
the
> kernel to make it more LSB compliant.  However this does bring up some
> meaningful work as a future project.  I haven't really looked into this
any
> further, so for all I know all of these LSB bugs could be fixed in the
2.5.x
> kernel.

You kind of lost me there in those last two sentences. What work? Whose
project? And why bugs in RedHat distribution would be fixed in vanilla
kernel?

--MiKu




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list