[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-02-13

[Darren Davis]

Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Attendees: Jeff, Stew, George Kraft, Sam, Jesper, Mats, Darrin Davis, 
> Robert Schweikert, Carlos Duclos, Marvin, Alexey, Kay, Russ Herrold
>
> Carlos: F2F?  Jeff: at Collaboration Summit, week of April 7.  Actual 
> Summit starts Tuesday, LSB-specific stuff starts Thursday, extends 
> past the LF Summit to Friday and Saturday.  Mats: Ted's email to the 
> list has the info.
>
> Java.  Jeff:  Kay: the people who own the Java runtimes should be 
> creating the LSB-compliant JDK.  Robert: agree, the LSB should provide 
> what the JRE needs in 4.0, and the JRE owners should then certify. 
> Darrin: certifying class paths?  Want Java apps to drop on LSB system 
> and it have a good chance of running.  Robert: should distros install 
> a LSB-certified Java runtime?  Can we get a LSB JRE certified by the 
> 4.0 release?  Kay: working on Java 6 JRE runtime.  What does it mean 
> to make it trial use?  Jeff: start gathering data on the status of 
> JREs in the distros.  Kay: would a trial use standard help to boost 
> need for LSB certification of the JRE?  George: yes.  Kay: specifying 
> where jars get installed is an important part.  Robert: for 4.0, get 
> JRE-required symbols, get JRE vendors to certify, standard class path 
> in trial use. Darrin: JPackage allows multiple JREs; maybe the LSB 
> should do that too.  George: how does JPackage handle multiple JVMs?  
> Darrin: will research and send to the list.  Jeff: is there a standard 
> class path already? Darrin: JPackage covers this as well.

OK, pretty straight forward.  First to deal with the multiple JVMs, we 
just use the Debian update-alternatives system.  Talked about here;

http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-customizing.en.html

I also found another implementation here;

http://alternatives.sourceforge.net/


The Linux/Debian Alternatives system is talked about with JPackage, but 
JPackage doesn't implement that.  It's goals are pretty straightforward 
from their website http://jpackage.org/

> The JPackage Project has two primary goals:
>
> To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, 
> satisfying all quality requirements of other applications.
> To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software 
> packaging and installation.
> We focus on free and open source software whenever possible. For 
> convenience, we also provide non-free packages without the restricted 
> source code.
So, I recommend from the JPackage project that we investigate the 
JPackage Utilities.

>
> New library list in ProjectPlan40.  Robert: libresolv no, Python C 
> bindings is part of "future of Python" question, probably unrealistic 
> to specify more of Perl or Python in 4.0.  Yes to GLU and some X 
> extensions, Xmu, Xpm.
>
> Robert: not Motif.  Motif can be shipped; make sure it can be shipped 
> if needed.  Kay: only seen 1 Motif app.
>
> Carlos: might be complicated to require SSL because of country and 
> export regulations.  Robert: may not be a candidate for 4.0 because of 
> legal, tech issues.  Mats: libcrypto is #1 in demand, libssl is #5. 
> Robert: LF lawyers may need to take a look.
>
> George: on Motif, also compatibility issues with lesstif.  Some people 
> still shipping Motif binaries.
>
> Jeff: SSL should continue to be researched.  Robert: maybe talk about 
> at the F2F in April.
>
> Jeff: Cairo is pulled in by newer GTK+, shouldn't be controversial. 
> Upstream seems enthusiastic.
>
> Carlos: Qt uplift?  Jeff: on uplifts page, will be considered, most 
> likely a resource issue.  Carlos: can provide resources.
>
> Mats: "better C++ support".  libsigc, C++ bindings.  Robert: should be 
> prominent, compatibility issue still a problem.  Jeff: improvement? 
> Robert: definitely, but the deprecation policies are still an issue.  
> If compatibility issues are under control, then more C++ stuff is 
> probably good.  Jeff: combinatorial problem with bindings; should wait 
> for demand before adding bindings.  Robert: need a way for ISVs to 
> register demand; should do in 4.0 timeframe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss