[cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance

Craig Thomas craiger at osdl.org
Thu Feb 13 13:45:32 PST 2003

One of the requirements for a distribution to meet the OSDL CGL
specification is that it be LSB compliant (as stated in Requirement 1.1
of version 1.1 of the Requirements Spec).  It would be an impractical
use of CGL validation resources to do something that is already done by
the LSB group; namely, to check for LSB compliance.

The point is further clarified when you consider that LSB is creating
a set of certification tests that address the core components of a
Linux kernel.  Those components are universal to any linux kernel a
distro may produce, whether it be called Carrier Grade, Data Center, 
Extreme server, etc.

Therefore, it made perfect sense that for any distribution to meet the
OSDL CGL specifications, it was best if that distribution also became
LSB certified.  If that happened, then by default CGL requirement 1.1
LSB compliance is met.

In fact, it would make perfect sense to start with a base kernel that
is already LSB certified, then add patches to the kernel that will
help it meet the OSDL CGL specification.

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 05:43, Subhabrata Biswas wrote:
> Hi,
> I regret the inconvenience caused by the disclaimer text present
> in my previous posting in the mailing list. My apologies for also
> not putting my mail-id properly. I have tried to take care of all
> those issues now and am expecting some response henceforth.
> Coming back to my query about CGL-LSB compliance, I did spent 
> some time through the CGL-discussion mailing list archives to
> find out what is the current status on this.
> I came across a posting by Miku last month about CGL-LSB work,
> and am interested to know if any further progress has been made
> about this activity.
> As I had talked about in my previous (unaswered) mail, I have
> seen information about a 'closed-completed' project regarding
> some "LSB reference implementation validation test against
> the LSB v1.1 suite". Can someone enlighten me as to why no
> results are put in the related results link. Moreover as
>  LSB v1.3 suite has already been released, I was wondering
> what is CGL-WG's stand and plan about GGL compliance test for
> LSB v1.3 suite. Is some group already working on this activity?
> Any pointers/information regarding my queries would be really
> appreciated.
> Looking forward eagerly to some informative helping hand out
> there.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Subhabrata.
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
Craig Thomas <craiger at osdl.org>

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list