[lsb-discuss] draft for SC22 liaison
R P Herrold
herrold at owlriver.com
Thu Jul 26 18:56:24 UTC 2012
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, keld at keldix.com wrote:
revisions noted -- revised matter in indented; commentary is
inside []
> IA32, TM, AMD64, PPC32, PPC64, S390, and S2390X repspectively.
...........................................^^^^^^
[probably] S390X
> A revison 5.0 is is being developed with a quite changed structure.
.............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^
refactored, and thus, changed
> That work has not been lost
...............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is and has at all times been publicly availbable in the
projects version control system
> , however it was also understood that there
> was kind of given a pass in not completely conforming to the ISO
> conventions as a first-time PAS submission, but that a future revision
> would require additional work to more fully conform, so it may be that
> the existing facilities to generate a specification for consumption by
> ISO would not be sufficient - advice on that issue would be needed.
[I would strike this entirely -- if there are objections as to
the form of the certification about, let a person opposing
such raise them]
> The LSB group has tried to maintain the policy of a "common standard"
....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
has maintained
> - to not intentionally diverge the standards wording between ISO
> and non-ISO. Issues that specifically related to the "ISO portion"
> of LSB continue to have flags in the LSB issue tracking system.
.........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
have at all relevant times
> The status is then that the ISO standard is seriously outdated
...........................................^^^^^^^^^^^^
may be
[LSB have not auditted, nor seen a 'diff' as to the degree of
divergence -- the use of the adverb 'seriously' is plainly
inappropriate]
> , and the
> PAS originator has lost its PAS status in ISO.
................^^^^^^^^^^^^^
no longer has
-- Russ herrold
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list