[cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance

Jeremy A. Puhlman jpuhlman at mvista.com
Thu Feb 13 15:03:57 PST 2003


> Just reinforcing what Craig said...
> 
> On to, 2003-02-13 at 13:45, Craig Thomas wrote:
> (...)
> > 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.
> 
> Yep, the only way for a distro to claim it is meeting our requirement
> for LSB compliance is to get the distro in question listed on LSB's page
> of certified distros: 
>   http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_prodlist.tpl
> 

Compliance and Certification are two different check boxes. From the
specification (http://www.osdl.org/projects/cgl/osdl_cgl_architecture_specification_1_1.pdf , 5.1, pg 31):

<snip>

The LSB specification defines the layout and structure of a distribution, whereas OSDL CGL is a
collection of enhancements that are installed into a distribution.
LSB certification defines three types of products that can be certified:
. Runtime environments
. Applications
. Build environments

To be OSDL CGL compliant, a distribution must comply with the version of the LSB
certification test suite specified by the OSDL CGL Verification subgroup. Given a distribution
that passes the LSB Runtime Environment certification test, the distribution will continue to pass
the test after OSDL CGL enhancements have been installed.

</snip>

A distrobution can be compliant and not be certified. Complinace is measured by the results of the 
LSB certification test suite. Certified LSB compliant is submitting those results to open group for
independant testing.

While I am not saying certification is not preferable, it does not appear to be required in the 
document.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Jeremy
MontaVista Software





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list