[lsb-discuss] Thoughts on LSB ISO standard

Carlos O'Donell carlos_odonell at mentor.com
Thu Jul 26 16:07:47 UTC 2012

On 7/26/2012 9:45 AM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>>> 2. We could take LSB as a project in SC22.  This is how it is done by eg.
>>> POSIX, C and C++. We need either to have a Working Group in SC22, or
>>> some representatives from SC22 to LSB, as SC22 also do it for POSIX.
>> I was not aware that SC22 still has a POSIX WG? With the Austin Group
>> doing such a good job I thought that the POSIX WG was effectively disbanded.
>> I would support option #2 to create an LSB WG within SC22. This
>> might spur other members of SC22 to become involved in helping the LSB
>> through the ISO process.
> I think we'd be better off, if it could be pulled off, using the POSIX
> (Austin Group) model, which, like Keld, I'm well acquainted with -
> I've been some level of participant for many years, although not
> particularly active.  This would mean ISO representatives working within
> the LSB workgroup to make sure "LSB revisions" are also "ISO revisions".
> There's already at least the two of you around now :)

That sounds great, having the Austin Group as an example to work from is
the best thing we could have.

Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell at mentor.com
carlos at codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list