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

Stephanie Glass sglass at us.ibm.com
Fri Sep 6 11:48:06 PDT 2002

I agree with Mika.  Making LSB work correct is a distro job.  The only
question I have is the following:

- Someone runs LSB on stock vanilla 2.4.18 kernel and get a set of errors.
- Someone runs LSB on our version of the 2.4.18 kernel and get some extra

Do we need to figure out which patch broke something and fix it?  Is that a


Linux Technology Center
 IBM, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX  78758
 Phone: (512) 838-9284   T/L: 678-9284  Fax: (512) 838-3882
 E-Mail: sglass at us.ibm.com

                      Mika Kukkonen                                                                                         
                      <mika at osdl.org>                 To:       Rusty Lynch <rusty.lynch at intel.com>                         
                      Sent by:                        cc:       "'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'" <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>       
                      cgl_discussion-admin at lis        Subject:  RE: [cgl_discussion] Something we might be able to work on  
                      ts.osdl.org                      relati   ng the LSB                                                  
                      09/06/2002 01:40 PM                                                                                   

On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:30, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> 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
> 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.

OK, now I got it, and the answer no, it is not our job to make vanilla
2.4.18 kernel to pass LSB tests, it is the Linux distribution vendors job.


cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list