[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_specs] Use case - Live patching

Corey Minyard cminyard at mvista.com
Wed Mar 30 06:54:12 PST 2005

Yes, I agree.  The requirement should only be for user applications, not 
distro components or kernel.  It should explicitly say so.  However, 
Ralf said:

Then it should be stated very explicitely that this feature may only
be used for and by applications and that it is forbidden to patch
the underlying distro with it.

which would restrict the feature to forbid patching the distro components.


Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

>But, as it stands, the requirement is not limited in the use case
>to user applications (and specific ones at that).  I think that not
>forbidding expanded scope goes without saying...
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>No.  A standard that restricts extra things a distro may do is wrong.  
>>This has nothing to do with verifiable certification.
>>IMHO, all a distro should be required to do is allow patching of a user 
>>application.  With that, it would clearly meet CGL requirements and it 
>>is verifiable.  A distro may restrict that to only user applications, it 
>>may allow patching of core components, it may only allow it's own 
>>patches to be used for core components, etc.  But adding a restriction 
>>where the distro may not allow it's libraries or OS to be patched is an 
>>extra restriction that adds nothing to certification and limits what a 
>>distro can to beyond the standard to compete in the marketplace.
>>And you comment about being fuzzy about what is and is not allowed is 
>>not correct.  I'm sure SuSE ships a lot of packages that are not 
>>mentioned in the CGL standard.  Would you like to have to remove all 
>>those packages and only ship what is explicitly mentioned in the 
>>standard?  The standard should be clear about what is required, and 
>>should not be fuzzy about that.  However, it should allow things beyond 
>>the standard.  Allowing this does a couple of things.  It lets the 
>>distro vendor add value beyond the standard.  It shows where the 
>>standard needs to be extended.  And it allows new technology to be 
>>tested in the market.
>>I believe a limitation like this would be like adding the limitation: 
>>"You can only provide support 12 hours a day."  It's an unnecessary 
>>limitation.  The distro should be able to provide any level of support 
>>it thinks customers require.

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list