[lsb-discuss] Thinking about future LSB features

Yang Lao laoyanger at gmail.com
Sun Feb 22 08:52:00 PST 2009

"Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> writes:

> So just to start that particular ball rolling, let's ask
> again what are the pain points that LSB 4.0 doesn't address?
> We do have some saved issues that didn't get addressed,
> and some subset of those will likely be on the list for
> the next version of LSB, but rather than trot those out
> here I'd like to do a one-time query "fresh".
> What would make LSB more useful to you?

Legacy language support. For example, one of the GNU compilers is not LSB
complient and is also close to getting forked up by distro (including Debian
vs. Ubuntu). The maintainer of the compiler does not have time to do much
about it. Many of the programmers that use the compilier have decades of
experience each and are able to to convert large projects to linux, but do
not yet have the skills it would take to make the compiler even LSB
conformant. Some of the programmers know just enough to be dangerous, so
they rebuild the compiler on whatever distro they have, then promote their
compilier as the path of least resistance to linux. A lot more legacy apps
could be ported to linux correctly if the LF provided some reinforcement at
the compiler level.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20090222/ceef2e2e/attachment.htm 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list