[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-01-07

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Fri Jan 9 07:33:00 PST 2009

Attendees: Jiri, Jeff, Stew, Ron, Mats, Robert, Russ, Brian, Ted

LSB 4.0.  Jeff: will need to do a RC2.  Once that's done, will retest;
what are the criteria for release?  Mats: should target on the bug list.
 50-odd P1 and P2 bugs.  Should have an answer for all of them.  If we
do respin, some low-impact additions to headers for things that do
appear in the spec.

Mats: Also, Jeff Johnson did a fairly lengthy review of packaging spec;
might want to look at those, esp. his top priority one.  Russ: comment
from JJ: getting version comparisons unified between deb and LSB/RPM is
very close, would make life a lot easier.  Mats: we don't specify
version comparisons at all.  Jeff: lots of good feedback, may have to
focus on one or two really important issues.  Versions comp was Mats's
issue?  Mats: yes.  Russ: which bug?  Mats: bug 1462.  Russ: should be
straightforward ways to resolve the minor deviations between the package
systems.  Jeff: how quick can we come up with some proposed text?  Russ:
will ask Jeff Johnson.  Ron: not sure if he's up to speed, but is this
summarizable?  Russ: a number of threads on packaging; need to be
entered into Bugzilla.  Should not require binary changes (apart from
possible minor repackaging), mostly documentation.

Russ: multilib will be an issue going forward.  Jeff: we had an old
proposal, worked on by some Debian folks, might have been a little too
radical.  Might want a simpler solution.  Mats: definitely a 4.1 issue.

Ted: don't want to focus on packaging issues this late.  Jeff: version
comparison, maybe one other issue, is all we can do for 4.0.  Ted: as a
4.1 issue, should modularize the spec if we can, so it's easier to take
advantage of external resources.  "Release early, release often."  Give
contributors a way to see feedback quickly.  Russ: has been working on
this for two years.  Ted: there are issues, not easy, but should be
done.  Mats: we do have the ability to do this; the "books" project is
designed to make the spec more modular.  Push individual specs as their
own book.  Ted: process issues to think about. Mats: the specs can each
have their own version series.  Ted: like FHS; should probably reopen
that one, too.

Mats: on packaging, need to go through, triage.  Jeff: who?  Russ: Mats
and I, but after 4.0 ships.

Jeff: DTK Manager.  Several bugs related to "released-all" and lsb-setup.

Jeff: Failures.  No distro claims conformance to 4.0; will need at least
one update for things like lsb_release.  FHS issues.  Mats: may push
patches to the tests to disable those.  Jeff: use DTK Manager to turn
those off instead of patching the tests?  Ted: as long as we can get
that information in other workflows.  Stew: could use the tjreport
waiver info.  Jeff: has been unmaintained; update that from DTK Manager
data?  Mats: should look at generating the waiver data.  May want to be
careful; waivers are a little different.  Mats: should teach tjreport to
handle those.  Jeff: should our tet be version-independent?  Mats:
should be. Stew: in favor of using DTK Manager to suppress those.

Jeff: exec tests.  Stew: not seeing these in more recent distros.  Jeff:
maybe this is a SuSE-ism; if so, they will probably be motivated to fix
for app compatibility reasons.

Jeff: criteria for release?  Make it easy for the three major distros to
certify: RH, Novell, and Ubuntu.

Ted: when do we want to do a F2F?  Obvious time: collaboration summit.
Travel lockdowns are coming, so combining travel is a must.  Would be
after the collab summit.  Some people were thinking of meeting earlier
than the collab summit, but worried about travel approvals.  Robert: F2F
and Summit in same week would be better.  Before?  Ted: would be hard
personally (filesystem summit), but might still be good.  Avoiding the
weekend would be a good idea.  Everyone has the same idea; unless we
pick a weekend, we will run into conflicts.  Jeff: how many people are
under travel restrictions?  Robert: would only make one, probably the
F2F.  Jeff: later is OK; have time.  Ted: if we do one later, combining
with Plumbersconf and Linuxcon would probably be good.  Jeff: anyone
want to argue for before the collab summit?  No responses; perhaps we
should then get the schedule figured out and only do an earlier F2F if
we have to.  Ted: also, in favor of the collab summit, ISPRAS will be
more likely to attend if they're together.  Jeff: let's take to the
list.  Start with the schedule to do the F2F in the beginning of the
week, and discuss how that will affect the schedule, possibly doing the

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list