[lsb-discuss] Thoughts on LSB ISO standard

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Wed Jul 25 16:40:07 UTC 2012

>> - LSB has often been criticised for not covering enough of Linux "common"
>> functionality; since LSB-core is a subset of full LSB, that question should
>> be even larger for whether LSB-core is actually useful as an ISO standard.
>> At the same time, there has also been the very real debate about whether
>> an LSB specification which includes "desktop" elements is an appropriate
>> requirement for server-oriented installations of LSB.
> Isn't this is a question that the LSB itself has to already answer for certification?

yes, and it's part of what's driving the reorg for 5.0, to complete work on
"modularizing" LSB which was partly done long ago but never really put
into operation.

> I would imagine that the ISO document would follow an already established answer.
> For example the ISO LSB could be lsb-core, with all other functionality grouped
> into optional Annexes.
> Alternatively you could publish multiple documents one for each part of the LSB
> and make them different standard. This is the approach taken by some of the
> functional safety standards like

Sure.  Take a look at what it's like now:

> What are you using to build the document? Docbook (which I'm very very familiar
> with)?

yes, docbook.  docbook sgml, unfortunately (unfortunately mainly because the
dsssl stylesheet work is essentialyl impossible for mere mortals, but
also because
the sgml versions of docbook are "dead" now, no further development for a while)

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list