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

Khalid Aziz khalid_aziz at hp.com
Tue Sep 14 08:13:38 PDT 2004


On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 10:36, John Cherry wrote:
> 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.
> 

John,

That would be my recommendation too. It is not a good idea to change a
requirement in a released spec. Expanding a requirement to allow LSB
v1.3 or later is a much better idea.

-- 
Khalid

====================================================================
Khalid Aziz                                Linux and Open Source Lab
(970)898-9214                                        Hewlett-Packard
khalid_aziz at hp.com                                  Fort Collins, CO

"The Linux kernel is subject to relentless development" 
				- Alessandro Rubini





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list