[lsb-discuss] revisiting LSB Desktop certification

[Matt Taggart]

"Ian Murdock" writes...

> On 1/31/07, Banginwar, Rajesh <rajesh.banginwar at intel.com> wrote:
> > How do we define "Desktop components"? Is Graphincs module (X, OpenGL,
> > imaging) part of Desktop?
> > If yes, LSB 3.1update1 will not be backward compatible to LSB 3.0. If
> > no, we may still not be addressing all the concerns.
> 
> Good question. We won't break backward compatibility. Even if graphics has
> to stay, while not ideal (I would have loved to have gotten rid of X etc.
> in the DCC days), it should be noted that the primary complaint seems to
> be the desktop libs that got added in 3.1 which aren't relevant (and
> just represent added overhead) for the server products, and just
> plain don't make any sense on some of the architectures (e.g. S390X).

In past face to face meetings (one of the Hillsboro?) we had proposed that 
the graphics module would move from core to desktop with the next major 
version revision, 4.0. Since then additional decisions about backwards 
compatibility were made, how do they affect that? Would that still be a 
good time to move or is there some reason why it has to stay that way? 
(like a LSB 3.0 application running on an LSB 4.0 runtime)

-- 
Matt Taggart        Open Source & Linux Organization R&D
taggart at fc.hp.com   Hewlett-Packard