[lsb-discuss] Where to add libnss ?

[Ron Hale-Evans]

I prefer

3. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-Core

and then second best:

1. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-Security (new)

Ron H-E


On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Wichmann, Mats D
<mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> wrote:
>
> ISPRAS has provided material to fold the NSS
> interface set we've been looking at into LSB,
> but to "turn it on" we need to answer some
> basic questions.
>
> All LSB libraries have to be assigned to a
> submodule. submodules are LSB building blocks that
> are important for internal categorization, but
> really aren't visible as distinct things externally.
> The current submodule list is:
>
> LSB_Core, LSB_Cpp, LSB_Graphics, LSB_Graphics_Ext,
> LSB_Toolkit_Gtk, LSB_Toolkit_Qt, LSB_Toolkit_Qt3,
> LSB_XML, LSB_Perl, LSB_Python, LSB_Printing,
> LSB_Multimedia, LSB_TUM (Trial Use)
>
> It doesn't seem to fit naturally into any of
> those, and the current proposal is to make a new
> submodule, LSB_Security
>
>
> In addition, each submodule must be assigned to
> a module; the modules are the things we publish
> as LSB specifications.  The current module list is:
>
> LSB-Core, LSB-CXX, LSB-Desktop, LSB-Languages,
> LSB-Printing, LSB-TrialUse
>
> If there's a new submodule, LSB_Security, it
> doesn't seem to fit really naturally into any
> of the existing modules either.
>
>
> Options for what to do with NSS might be:
>
> 1. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-Security (new)
> 2. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-Desktop
> 3. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-Core
> 4. sm LSB_Security (new), mod LSB-TrialUse
> 5. sm LSB_Core, mod LSB-Core
> 6. sm LSB-TUM, mod LSB-TrialUse
>
>
> I'd like to close down on this pretty quickly -
> in order to shake out any implementation issues
> we'll commit changes to enable it using one of
> the above choices, but that decision doesn't have
> to be the final one, looking for workgroup
> (rough) consensus for that - namely the responses
> to this call.
>
> I don't know that I've heard any call for NSS to
> go in as trial use, *usually* we use that for
> features which aren't quite ready yet in terms of
> having the right implementation on all the distros
> but that isn't the case here.  However, if people
> feel this should be trial use, this is the time to
> speak up in favor of that opinion.