[lsb-discuss] New Interfaces for 3.2/4.0
imurdock at imurdock.com
Wed Aug 2 09:08:48 PDT 2006
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> Ar Maw, 2006-08-01 am 17:29 -0700, ysgrifennodd Nick Stoughton:
>>> Indispensable nowadays. Every system striving for POSIX compliance
>>> probably has it. This does not include systems using subprofiles.
>>> Similar to _POSIX_MMAPED_FILES.
>> Disagree on these two. MMUless systems can implement almost everything
>> but these and there are a *lot* of MMUless boxes around (Linux
>> especially) that are otherwise pretty much fully POSIX.
>> The two could probably be merged.
>>From the LSB perspective, the behavior required by
> these has long been required (interfaces like mmap,
> mlockall, and mlock).
> For embedded-type systems it may not make sense (I presume
> the mmu-less systems fall in this general category), but
> that's covered, I believe, by the quote
> "This does not include systems using subprofiles"
Let's make sure we don't do anything that precludes or greatly
complicates an LSB Embedded. We frequently get questions about
if and when we're going to do one of those, and our standard
answer is that we'd be happy to serve as a vehicle for
such an effort if the right companies were interested in getting
involved. As it stands now, we have neither the
resources nor the expertise, which is why we haven't pursued it.
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
More information about the lsb-discuss