[cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Thu Feb 13 16:05:01 PST 2003


On to, 2003-02-13 at 15:03, Jeremy A. Puhlman wrote:

> Compliance and Certification are two different check boxes. From the
> specification 
(...)
> 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?

No, you are just pointing one of the many ... "issues" in our specs, and
a new one I was not even aware of ... <sigh>.

Yes, I think in CGL 1.1 world what I stated previously is not correct,
and your interpretation is right. So you can meet the LSB requirement
without doing the actual LSB certification and just claiming compliance.

I guess at the time when 1.1 specs were made it was not yet clear to us
what our relationship with LSB really was, and so we played safe. But
fact really is that OSDL has neither will nor resources to start doing
LSB testing of distros, so we just have to rely on external parties
here.

Also I think I recall that there was this issue of X being mandatory
part of LSB, while it really is not a requirement for CGL. But IMHO
this has now been solved in LSB specs!?

What does this mean in practice? I guess for CGL 1.1 compliance all
distro needs to do is to claim to be LSB compliant. I am pretty sure
that if this claim was later found to be intentionally false, it would
have unwanted consequences for the distro, so I doubt whether anybody
would do that.

But for CGL 2.0, I think this requirement will be amended to read as I
stated in my previous mail, i.e. that LSB _certification_ is required,
just to avoid any unexpected and unwanted complications.

--MiKu





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list