[cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance

Lynch, Rusty rusty.lynch at intel.com
Fri Feb 14 09:15:30 PST 2003

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subhabrata Biswas [mailto:subhabrata.biswas at wipro.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:49 AM
> To: mika at osdl.org
> Cc: cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB 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.
> >
> 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.

If a given project breaks LSB compliance (for what ever reason) then it is a
bug for that project.  You would deal with that bug as you would any bug for
that particular project.
Now what might be productive is to cc this mailing list for that bug report.
That would not transfer ownership of the bug, but it would publicize the bug
report to a large collection of people who have a strong interest in having
the bug fixed.

For example if you find that a patch submitted to lkml breaks some aspect of
the CGL requirements (LSB or whatever) then CC this list with the bug report
to LKML/maintainer.   The maintainer of the patch or LKML in general might
not see the bug as a priority, but somebody on this list might feel
motivated to work on a fix.


> Looking forward to your views / suggestions on this.
> Regards,
> Subhabrata.
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list