[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_registration] LSB 2.0 for CGL 2.0?
cherry at osdl.org
Wed Sep 8 09:36:41 PDT 2004
The LSB 2.0 appears to be a mess with regards to c++/gcc and ABI
versions. I would not be in favor of doing an s/v1.3/v2.0 change to the
CGL 2.0.1 spec.
However, distros will likely certify with either LSB v1.3 OR LSB v2.0.
The question is whether certifying a distro with LSB v2.0 meets the
registration criteria for the CGL v2.0.1 spec. I would say that either
one should be acceptable. Perhaps the only wording change to the CGL
2.0.1 spec would be for LSB v1.3 or later.
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 09:03, Mika Kukkonen (Nokia-NET/Espoo) wrote:
> ext 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.
> To my understanding there is some controversy between several distros
> and LSB, see this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/96347/
> So I think a real evaluation of LSB 2.0 needs to be made before
> CGL-WG jumps into that mess.
More information about the cgl_discussion