[lsb-discuss] Question from an AppChecker user...
tytso at mit.edu
Fri Dec 12 11:43:59 PST 2008
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:52:35AM -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> As far as I know, AppChecker has boxes to submit "errors" as
> "request for future LSB feature" - I haven't looked at this in
> detail but predecessor tools (atk-manager) had this.
> I'm assuming from the rest of the context "kernel API" means an
> interface for drivers to use. If such a thing truly stabilizes,
> then someone could propose to include it; while LSB has been asked
> for it many many times, I can say as an internal statement - maybe
> this is not what you pass on - that LSB is not working on that with
> anyone right now.
Upstream has already made its statement on this matter. See the
stable_api_nonsense.txt in the Linux kernel sources:
> I think dkms is considered an interim solution until other things
> evolve (as discussed above). I'd say if it's really considered
> interim it would be unlikely for LSB.
I'd have to agree; *highly* unlikely.
> This sounds negative; the essence is that LSB has been focused on a
> different layer of application portability than is implied by
> talking directly to the kernel. I *know* there are applications
> that have a driver component, and those have always seemed
> problematic for the apps which have a driver piece. It would take
> some sort of conscious decision for LSB to start focusing on that
> area, which doesn't mean it couldn't happen someday.
We've always said that the LSB won't standardizing anything without
the support of the upstream authors/maintainers; and while anything is
possible, including Greg K-H stating (and not as a joke) in a keynote,
"Bill Gates is my God and Ballmer is his prophet" ---- well, it just
doesn't seem highly likely. :-)
More information about the lsb-discuss