[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-04-16

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Wed Apr 16 09:32:32 PDT 2008

Attendees: Mats Wichmann, Stew Benedict, Dan Kohn, Carlos Duclos, Jesper 
Thomschultz, Kay Tate, Russ Herrold, Jeff Licquia, Vladimir Rubanov, 
Alexey Khoroshilov, Marc Miller, Ted Tso, Marvin Heffler, George Kraft, 
Darren Davis

New notes format, with broken-up sections.  Feedback welcome.

LF Summit.  Jeff: very successful.  First day had IDC analyst talk on 
future Linux adoption, which seems to confirm the direction the LSB is 

Dan: Mobile track.  Three efforts: LiMo, GNOME, Android.

Dan: Also, reminder about request sent over weekend to the list; 
downstream users of LSB.

Ted: Mobile requirements.  Dan: Moblin/GNOME similar to LSB Desktop, 
with some uplifts.  Are in fact using the LSB tools and tests, slightly 
forked; are working to get those changes contributed back.  Mats: noting 
much interesting to sync back yet; work done is partial.  Dan: would 
want to track future changes.  Ted: some of these demands will impact 
the database infrastructure.

Robert: talking about the "embedded" profile on the list.  Could use 
clarification; still confused.  Seems like "server profile" makes more 
sense.  Dan: problem is that current server products ship graphical 
components, for config and other things, that can even be accessed 
remotely.  Robert: "embeeded" doesn't mean much.  Ted: nervous about the 
name, doing a profile just for one distro.  Need to understand binary 
compatibility issue on embedded.  Mobile is different.

Dan: requirement is for CGL.  Ted: we need to understand how ISVs for 
CGL do business.  Robert: problem is that people equate "embedded" with 
small devices, not servers.  Ted: servers will ship full LSB anyway, 
don't want confusion about whether an app will work or not.  Darren: 
embedded cases will be unique.  Dan: name isn't terribly important. 
Jeff: is this aimed at CGL?  Dan: yes.  Darren: maybe call it "CGL 

Carlos: is the problem related to graphics?  Dan: "non-GUI profile". 
Carlos: Qt is more than just a GUI.  Ted: this illustrates how we really 
need to know what CGL wants.  Need to hear from the distros themselves. 
  Dan: cross-posted the message to the CGL people.

Dan: Problem is that people are certifying to 3.0 to fulfill the LSB 
requirement in order to avoid the GUI.  Carlos: also need to talk to 
ISVs.  Ted: also need to know what to do with other areas besides GUI.

Jeff: RPM plan is to make the uplift low priority, do a rpm build tool 
as higher priority.  Russ: not a good idea.  v3 is obsolete for 8 years; 
uplift or drop and use tarballs.  Ted: what ISVs need in LSB aren't the 
same as what the distros need.  Russ: pre- and post-install scripts, 
pre-and-post triggers.  Ted: many of those are not necessarily 
high-priority for the ISVs.  Russ: not the case.  Each use post 
triggers.  Format doesn't work.  Don't use it because it doesn't work.

Discussion of RPM 5.  Ted: to be clear, RPM 4 is what RH/SuSE support? 
Russ: yes.  Supported by RPM 4 distros; not supported by Debian (not in 
alien).  Ted: partial update?  Russ: not useful.  Jeff: why not?  Russ: 
tarballs could do the same job.

Jeff: won't solve this on the call; can Russ send a summary of issues? 
Russ: been done.  Jeff: pointer?  Russ will send a pointer.  Jeff will 
add the information to the right places on the LSB wiki.  Problem is 
that the info wasn't recognized during the Summit.  Ted: also, needs to 
be presented in an even-tempered way; flames often get ignored even if 
they contain valuable info.

Jeff: also, there's interest from ISVs in an easy-to-use tool to build a 
RPM from simple metadata.  Russ: not that simple.  Jeff: ISVs think RPMs 
are too difficult; an easier-to-use tool isn't better?  Russ: no.

George: next week's call will be attended by stakeholders for the 
OpenSSL problem, so we can try to make progress there.  NSS people 
invited.  Jeff: OpenSSL?  George: not yet.  Ted: core people should be 
on the page.  George will look again.  Carlos: legal issues?  (crypto) 
Ted: largely solved from the US point of view.  Jeff: legal issues would 
be good to bring up next week with the stakeholders in the room.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list