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

Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara carlos.duclos at trolltech.com
Mon Apr 21 01:52:43 PDT 2008

On Friday 18 April 2008 16:05:56 Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> > Now that I reread this, shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if you are LSB 3.2 certified
> > for sure you are CGL, but if you are CGL then by definition you do not fulfill LSB 3.2 requirements....
> For *applications*, Dan had it right.  An application that uses no more 
> than the CGL subset interfaces will comply with the full LSB, since the 
> CGL subset interfaces are all part of the full LSB.  But an app 
> certified against full LSB could, say, use interfaces from GTK+, which 
> would not be part of the CGL subset.
> You are entirely correct, of course, when describing distributions.

Well, I thought that we were talking about certifications for distributions... after all the main reason
this was proposed was to certify distributions such as Montavista. Are we talking about creating 
a special certification for ISVs?

Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara
carlos.duclos at trolltech.com
QA Team Lead

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list