[lsb-discuss] draft for SC22 liaison

Keld Simonsen keld at keldix.com
Thu Jul 26 22:15:28 UTC 2012


Hi list

all of these edits seem fine to me.

keld

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:56:24PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> 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The status is then that the ISO standard is seriously outdated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