[lsb-discuss] [Lf_carrier] Fwd: LSB 3.2 Embedded Profile

Theodore Tso tytso at mit.edu
Wed Apr 16 18:18:02 PDT 2008

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:50:47PM -0700, MacDonald, Joe wrote:
> > + Do the distros that you're LSB 4.0 registering include qt and gtk
> > today?  If so, you wouldn't be able to certify under this profile.
> > Could you please confirm that you're shipping non-GUI distros today.
> Wind River's CGL-registered distros on the market today are CLI-only if
> you're using our default configurations.

Do you ship a GUI stack at all with your product?  Or is it just that
it isn't installed by "default"?  SuSE doesn't install all of the LSB
required graphical libraries by default either, but doesn't mean that
it can't be LSB certified.

One of the interesting questions in the embedded world is that users
will always strip out any library they don't need, which I think is
perfectly fair.  I would think that it's not reasonable to require
end-users of embedded distributions to install a full LSB stack if
it's not necessary.  If an application needs only a subset of the LSB,
and the OS and the application(s) are going to be frozen in ROM, such
as in the something like the Sony Reader, it doesn't seem necesary to
require that the GUI stack be shipped if it's not necessary.

On the other hand, if the idea that Independent Software Vendors are
going to be installing applications on the platform while it is in the
user's hands, such as might be the case in a Limo or Moglin password,
that's a different story.

So if "embedded" means something like the Sony Reader, and an embedded
distribution is going to be shipping the GUI stack, but the product
designer decides not to install the GUI stack, I don't think that
would be a problem in terms of whether or not the embedded
distribution can be LSB certified or not.

> > + Could you please list some of the most important closed source
> > applications that run on your CGL distros today?  We would like to
> > pull them into the LSB process and convince them of the value of LSB
> > certifying.
> Obviously the most important closed-source applications are from Wind
> River, right?  ;-)

Well, the big thing that we're most worried about is __Idependent__
Software Vendor.  If you're just going to shipping your own
closed-source applications with your Linux distro, you don't really
need to use the LSB to ensure interoperability, do you?  :-)

     	    	       	      			   - Ted

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list