LSB Commands and Utilities, Draft proposal
jfh at bga.com
Tue Jul 6 19:19:12 PDT 1999
Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Frank LaMonica wrote:
> > I suggest that we first try to document differences between all of the
> > major Linux distributions and then try to reconcile those differences
> > between each of the Linux vendors.
> We have been doing this for many areas of incompatabilities. The web site
> has a partial list of the ones for which work is in progress.
I do agree that we should start by documenting incompatibilities. The
bug I was trying to make sure was planted in everyones ear was that
if distribution "X" is closer to UNIX98 than distribution "Y", we should
tend towards resolving the incompatibility in favour of "X", even if "Y"
is more "BSD-ish" or "historically Linux-ish".
> > Not one vendor has expressed a concern about conformance with
> > some universal Unix specification - they are considering a port to Linux
> > and they just want to know the rules they have to follow so they can
> > reach the Linux market.
> If Linux is close to UNIX98 (I didn't say matches exactly) then ISVs will
> find it easier to port their apps from other flavors of Unix.
Absolutely. For my US$0.02, I'd like to see Linux match UNIX98
exactly (with optional goodies either being truly "optional", or a common
set of Linux extensions being optional).
> As I mentioned in my other reply on this thread, using UNIX98 is a
> convenience to us. We are not mandating it, but are instead reusing the
> many man years of effort that have gone into it's development. It will
> be much easier for us to state that
Well <ahem> let's not forget the WOMANyears ;-) UNIX98 is a
nice, pre-existing standard. It's also one that enough people like that
they demand the big UNIX vendors provide UNIX98 compliant
> Linux = UNIX98 - (some set of differeces)
> than is will be for us to state that
> Linux = set of features(1 .. N)
This is a good way of expressing my desire as well.
More information about the lsb-discuss