jeff at licquia.org
Mon Feb 4 11:51:27 PST 2008
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:02:50PM -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
>> For this use case we need to further explore the "plugin certification
>> model" we have kicked around. Basically the vendors makes the statement
>> that says "Certified with any LSB compliant JRE". How we will test this
>> type of app needs to be determined, not sure whether or not Jeff had a
>> proposal for this.
> Yeah... I'm a little concerned about this. The devil will be in the
The proposal is on my task list for post-3.2 stuff. Here's an informal
In LSB 4.0, ELF binaries can be certified with a "plugin addendum",
whereby the ELF binary is claimed to be a plugin for some other system.
Thus, failures to resolve symbols in the ELF binary from within the
app or from within the LSB would be waived, provided the symbols met
some qualification. Loosely speaking, that qualification would be tied
to some requirement to document the plugin ABI.
The original use case for this proposal was the ever-popular Mozilla
plugin API, although the idea was to make this usable for other popular
plugin systems, such as GStreamer or widget theme engines.
As observed, there are some traps to avoid when granting approval to
plugin ABIs, which is why the proposal hasn't been made just yet.
IMHO, the plugin proposal is somewhat orthogonal to the question of
certifying Java apps. Certainly, if we can create a Java runtime that
is certified to the LSB and that runs the Java app in question, the
combination of the two should be certifiable as a LSB application today,
without the plugin proposal.
The value here may be in creating LSB-certified JREs for each of our
architectures that can also be certified to Sun's program.
Theoretically, Sun's certification could be translated to Linux
deployment, though we all know that logic isn't everything in these
More information about the lsb-discuss