[lsb-discuss] Perl, Python in LSB 3.2

Kay Tate ktate at us.ibm.com
Mon Jun 18 09:26:57 PDT 2007

Thanks for clarifying, Scott. For Chiphopper, we found it necessary to
specify a minimum version number from a portability standpoint. So far, we
have been successful with "Perl 5.8.0 and newer," though I think I saw
something go by recently on the list about 5.8.8 being the min really to
shoot for.

Best regards,
Kay A. Tate                                        Internet:
ktate at us.ibm.com
Chiphopper Program Manager              Phone: (507) 253-6939

             "Scott Baeder"                                                
             <baeder at cadence.c                                             
             om>                                                        To 
             Sent by:                  "Stew Benedict"                     
             lsb-discuss-bounc         <stewb at linux-foundation.org>        
             es at lists.freestan                                          cc 
             dards.org                 lsb-discuss                         
                                       <lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.or 
             06/18/07 09:22 AM                                     Subject 
                                       Re: [lsb-discuss] Perl, Python in   
                                       LSB 3.2                             


On the other hand, there are a LOT of smaller to medium ISV's that may not
need to do this once things are more stablized.

I think that moving forward, even if the standard is (to start with) just a
specification of what version and where it's located for these willbe a big
step forward, and we can look at more complete specifications and the
inclusion of additional "modules" over time.


-----Original Message-----
From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org on behalf of Stew
Sent: Mon 6/18/2007 9:19 AM
To: lsb-discuss
Subject: [lsb-discuss] Perl, Python in LSB 3.2

Just to keep the discussion going as we sort of hit a time constraint at
the F2F.

I think I heard a pretty strong "no" to just specifying /usr/bin/perl,
/usr/bin/python as being a usable solution.

I also think I heard the message that the large ISVs are likely to still
ship their own Python, Perl, Java, etc.,as the stakes are too high to
depend on behavior of the distribution copy.

So, to reiterate Mats' earlier question, is what we're trying to do with
Perl (Python is likely to be similar), going to meet the needs of those
ISVs that feel LSB needs to include these languages?


That is:

Define interpreter binary location, minimum version
Define a list of modules expected to be present, with a reference to the
upstream language specification. At this point, "the list" for Perl, is
only modules coming from the base perl tarball, nothing from CPAN, etc.

It looks like we have a promising resource in the Perl Foundation, with
Allison, but before I ask them to do the work to write a language spec
with the proper specification language, I want to make sure we're actually
going to be solving the perceived problem in not having these languages as
part of LSB.


Stew Benedict
The Linux Foundation

lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org

lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list