[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_registration] LSB 2.0 for CGL 2.0?

John Cherry cherry at osdl.org
Wed Sep 8 09:36:41 PDT 2004

Mika....welcome back!

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.
> Mika

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list