[lsb-discuss] Thoughts on LSB ISO standard

keld at keldix.com keld at keldix.com
Thu Jul 26 21:22:25 UTC 2012

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:46:47AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 2:04 PM, keld at keldix.com wrote:
> 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.

No, SC22 does not have a WG for POSIX (any longer), representation is done via 2 ISO
SC22 representatives, (one is Nick Stoughton, and I am the other one).

> 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.

Hmm, maybe. I doubt there is sufficient interest in SC22 member bodies.

Anyway, the whole trick for a long and happy life together is to not create different
sources of power and thus potential organisational fights. 
My prescription is that we gather all available experts in one room
(or email list etc) and then work things out. And then we progress the 
document that we have produced together, in our various parents organisations
according to each parent organisation's rules. And then make the timing so that
each parent can have their rules played out in a sensible way so their input
can be processed in a prudent way.

> > My personal opinion is that it would be good to also cover desktop elements.
> > We do not need to follow POSIX scope. We are on top of POSIX anyway.
> Wouldn't this mean that a server system, which doesn't have any desktop components
> could never be LSB compliant?

You can claim compliance to different parts of the standard, by writing profiles
and comformance clauses.

Best regards

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list