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