[lsb-discuss] [Lf_carrier] LSB 3.2 Embedded Profile
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Mon Apr 21 05:59:54 PDT 2008
Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> 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?
No, but for any available certification there are two pieces -
distro and application certification. The CGL-ceritfied distro
is a subset, so a CGL-certifie app would by definition also work
on a full LSB system. Meanwhile, a full-LSB-certified app would
probably include libraries that are not part of the CGL profile,
and thus would likely not work on a CGL system. I think that's all
anyone was saying.
And this is the thing that is worrying some people: once you start
segmenting the certifications, you have to start worrying about
matching the right things together, and understanding the above
matrix. I don't think this is a particularly severe problem in
these controlled cases.
More information about the lsb-discuss