[cgl_discussion] Something we might be able to work on relati
ng the LSB
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
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.
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> further, so for all I know all of these LSB bugs could be fixed in the
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
More information about the cgl_discussion