PROPOSAL: LSB Conformance

[Doug Beattie]

I believe the distributions should be required to run the 2 LSB
provided applications from our battery.

I also believe that in order to prepare better prepare application for
later "Compliance" we should specify that they need to run their
application on the sample environment and at least 2 of the
distributions that will self claim "Conformance".

As we have spoken before I believe we said we will require the
applications to run on the sample, one "Certified" distribution of
their choice, and one "Certified" distribution of the LSB's choice
which will be randomly choosen.

It may delay the applications being able to declare a self
"Conformance" for a short while if we have to get distributions to
make statements and release "Conforming" platforms first, but I
believe it would bring things more in line for what we will require
later and in the long run keep things moving along more smoothly.

Comments always welcome.

Doug

George Kraft IV wrote:
> 
> Let's discuss this online and formalize during the next couple conference calls
> [1/9, 1/16].
> 
> Using a similar condition as stated below, then I guess a "conforming"
> distribution might need to run the three apps from our application battery?
> 
> ftp://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/app-battery/
> 
> George (gk4)
> 
> Doug Beattie wrote:
> >
> > George:
> >
> > When will we be discussing this?
> >
> > Also, what about trying to incorporate some thoughts about the
> > application has self checked itself to run on both the sample
> > implementation/environment and at least one self declared "Conforming"
> > distribution?
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > George Kraft IV wrote:
> > >
> > > Enclosed is the LSB Conformance proposal that we would like to initiate *now* at
> > > the beginning of the year.  We would like to refine the enclosed terms, then let
> > > Linux distributions make "LSB Conformance" marketing statements.
> > >
> > > The LSB will then follow up with official "LSB Certification" and "LSB
> > > Compliance" programs that are more formally endorsed by the FSG/LSB.
> > >
> > > George (gk4)
> > >
> > > ===============================================================================
> > >
> > > The LSB would like to initiate a "Conformance" program beginning
> > > January 1st, 2002.  The "LSB Conformance" of a Linux distribution
> > > or application would mean that the suppiler makes a social testimonial
> > > to the Linux community.  The supplier states, without endorsement
> > > from the LSB or FSG, that to their knowledge their deliverable, at the
> > > time of its release, follows the LSB standard.
> > >
> > > Specifically for Linux distributions:
> > >
> > > 1) follows the LSB written specification
> > > 2) passes the binary LSB TET test suite provide by the LSB
> > > 3) passes the binary lsblibchk
> > > 4) passes the FHS checklist
> > > 5) Documents in their release notes all LSB exceptions with a plan of
> > >    resolution and due date
> > >
> > > Specifically for Linux applications:
> > >
> > > 1) follows the LSB written specification
> > > 2) link against the LSB stub libraries and runtime linker
> > > 3) passes the binary lsbappchk
> > > 4) statically links to APIs not specified by the LSB or included with
> > >    the applicaiton
> > >
> > > LSB Conformance is not be be confused with LSB Compliance or LSB Certificaiton.
> > > LSB Compliance is a self test, but requires registration of the results with
> > > the LSB.  LSB Certification is third party testing with registration.
> > >
> > > George (gk4)
> > >