[cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance

[Subhabrata Biswas]

> 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.
> 
OK, Based on the information that all of you have put forth, one thing
that's sure is that OSDL is no way concerned with LSB testing of distros.
As you have mentioned Miku, you are relying on external parties
to carry out LSB testing of the distros. Is it possible for me as an
individual contributor or as a group to carry out this compliance testing
activity. (Probably LSB team may have somthing to say on this as well, but 
I thought of getting the nod from OSDL-CGL team first.) 

I'm interested in this activity because of two main reasons -
The first (and the obvious one) is that I'm interested in contributing
to CGL activites. Secondly my group members are already involved with
the actual LSB activity in terms of writing specifications etc. So 
we were thinking that the our LSB knowledge and experience may just
help us in contributing to this CGL-LSB and related activities.

There's also a doubt which I would like to get clarified, and I have
seen similar opinions posted previously by Rusty and Stephanie as well. 
Supposing we find that adding the CGL patches to a previously "Compliant
& Certified" linux distro causes new LSB failures, who is expected to
take ownership of those? I am just curious to know OSDL-CGLWG stand on
this. 
 
Looking forward to your views / suggestions on this.

Regards,
Subhabrata.