[cgl_registration] Re: [cgl_discussion] LSB 2.0 for CGL 2.0?
Timothy D. Witham
wookie at osdl.org
Wed Sep 8 09:36:25 PDT 2004
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 08:54 -0700, John Cherry wrote:
> LSB 2.0 is already specified in the v3.0 standards/API draft.
> In the v2.0.1 spec, we should consider the change to LSB 2.0. At the
> time that the v2.0.1 spec was written, LSB 2.0 was not released yet. It
> is still not released, but there appear to be some downloads on the site
> (http://www.linuxbase.org/build/lsb20.html). Do you think that
> switching from LSB 1.3 to LSB 2.0 will have any impact on those distros
> currently attempting to register?
The one thing that you will have to consider is binary compatibility.
I believe that the 2.0 specifies glibc 3.4 which is not binary
compatible with previous versions.
> On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 06:00, La Monte H.P. Yarroll wrote:
> > The LSB folks have been encouraging us to consider LSB 2.0 Certification
> > instead of LSB 1.3. LSB 2.0 is due for final release any day now. Three
> > months after that release it will no longer be possible to get new LSB 1.3
> > certifications.
> > I recommend permitting LSB 2.0 Certification to meet CGL STD.1.0.
> > I suggest this as a topic for the F2F. I won't be there, but Manas Saksena
> > will be representing TimeSys.
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie at osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-626-2455 x11 (office) (503)-702-2871 (cell)
More information about the cgl_discussion