[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.1 Update 1 status (and minutes for 2/20 and2/27)
imurdock at imurdock.com
Fri Mar 2 02:41:46 PST 2007
Since we have something called "Core" that's an ISO standard without
C++, we can't refer to something else as "Core" that includes C++.
Let's make it a goal to get C++ to the point where we can roll it into
Core and submit that to ISO, perhaps in LSB Core 4.0. In the meantime,
we'll have to live with "Core and C++". I don't think it's that awful.
On 3/1/07, Wichmann, Mats D <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
> > Stew reports that, at the command line level, the switch is "-T core",
> > which is mildly confusing (since it's actually Core and C++) and "-T
> > desktop" (or no option at all, since "everything" is the default here
> > too). Since most users will be using the DTK Manager, I'm not
> > too worried
> > about -T core, but I suppose if it's easy to fix, we could change it.
> it's a long-standing issue that we've never really happily
> solved. the most natural concept of "core" is the bits you
> cannot do without, and for LSB since 2.0, that is defined
> as including c++. In the meantime, there was a module that
> is named core, and that's what is sent to ISO, because they
> weren't ready for (honestly, we arent' ready either) for C++
> at that level of standardization, the module split had to
> happen between that bit and c++ although we'd rather not
> have done that. Couldn't have sold "here's a proposed ISO
> spec, but in that book, these three chapters are not
> candidates, please just ignore those".
> I'm inclined to pretend this dichotomy doesn't exist and
> just have us adopt the principle of when we talk about the
> core LSB we mean "including c++" although for the reason
> just noted it's technically a separate module. Unless we
> can find another word with similar meaning and weight to
> core and then we could adopt it.
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
More information about the lsb-discuss