[lsb-discuss] LSB conference call agenda (Tuesday, November14, 11am ET)
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Mon Nov 13 19:02:08 PST 2006
>My concern is that one can always make the argument that something was
>left out of a specific version of the LSB and therefore has grounds to
>request inclusion in an update. Where do we draw the line?
oh, yes, I agree (and I am usually seen as the one who opposes
progress in this way :-)
>In principal I like the policy, just concerned about the large opening
>this allows for getting new things into a released version of the LSB.
>Maybe the policy should be more restrictive and focus on existing
>libraries. (Not sure whether or not this would make ioctl drop
>out as an option for 3.1 update 1).
there's a clearly related set of network ioctls of which we're
missing about three, all of which appear to be just as consistently
supported as the ones that are in. So I don't think we'd have to
argue too hard, but we'll bring forward the discussion more
formally on this list.
More information about the lsb-discuss