[lsb-discuss] LSB conference call agenda (Tuesday, November 14, 11am ET)
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Mon Nov 13 15:46:02 PST 2006
>* LSB 3.1 Update 1
>We need to get this out soon. Let's discuss what needs to go in it
>and timing. The main drivers here are 1. I want to get the waiver
>fixes out there; and 2. we need to get a handful of things in
>so that ISVs in the queue can certify (e.g., the ioctl for MySQL).
>Note that this brings up the issue of "update" policy, which we
>hashed out on the workgroup call a few weeks back; for the benefit of
>those who weren't on the call, the update policy is as follows:
> From time to time, the LSB workgroup may issue updates to the
> LSB standard.
> From the point of view of certified distributions and applications,
> the original version and the update shall be equivalent (i.e.,
> distributions and applications will certify to LSB 3.1, not LSB 3.1
> Update 1). In other words, recertification to an update is
> To achieve this, no change will be made in an update unless the
> change results in all certified implementations remaining complaint
> after it is made--or, put another way,
> the original version is FORWARD COMPATIBLE with all of its updates.
>That's a little longer than I was hoping for, but I also want to
>make sure it's precise. Suggestions on wording very welcome.
>In the meantime, I'll make sure this finds its way onto the wiki.
That's not unreasonable. I probably wouldn't use the word
update (in the context of the spec), specifically, as it may
imply more than will be happening. The piece that will affect
ISO, at least, should probably called Technical Corrigenda to
match terminology in use elsewhere. And it implies - which is
something we do anyway - that an addition has to be cast in terms
of "it was an error that this item was omitted" rather than in
terms of "we got a lot of requests for this, so we decided
to add it". I've had this conversation with Jeff on one
issue, and I think it meets that criteria - there a few
network-related ioctls that form a set, and we're missing a
few items from that set, and I think we can claim it was
an error to have left those out. Just wanted to add
More information about the lsb-discuss