[lsb-discuss] draft for SC22 liaison

[Keld Simonsen]

I have updated the draft liaison according to Russ' sugestions. Enclosed.
I found out I have until Monday to submit the liaison statement.

Best regards
keld

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:15:28AM +0200, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> 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The status is then that the ISO standard is seriously outdated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
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
Title: Liaison with the Linux Standard Base group

Date: 2012-07-26

Source Keld Simonsen, Liaison from SC22

Status: draft

The Linux Standard Base (LSB) standards
were approved in 2006 as ISO/IEC 23360.
It was submitted as a PAS by the Linux Foundation. 
The status of the Linux Foundation as ISO PAS 
submitter expired May 2008.

ISO/IEC 23360 is a series of LSB standards with part 1 being the Core
standard and part 2-8 defining the ABI for the architectures
IA32, TM, AMD64, PPC32, PPC64, S390, and S390X repspectively.

ISO/IEC 23360 corresponds to version 3.1 of the LSB specification. 

The status as of 2012-06-26 is that all the parts are in state 90.93 -
International Standard confirmed.

The ISO/IEC project editor according to SC22 N4638 SC22 Programme of Work
2011 is Nick Stoughton. The editor in LSB is Mats Wichmann.

There have been three significant revisions of LSB since the ISO submission.
Those have been LSB 3.2, 4.0 and 4.1.  These revisions have maintained
the document structure that was in place when LSB 3.1 went into ISO
with very little change.  There has only been one technical addition
to core, and- in theory updating the "ISO LSB"  
to LSB 4.1 level would not be a complicated process.

A revison 5.0 is is being developed with a refactored, and thus, changed structure.

There was some considerable work to make LSB 3.1 core able to be
produced as a standard that minimally fit ISO requirements, which was
largely done by a contractor retained for that purpose (Nick Stoughton). 
That work is and has at all times been publicly availbable in the
projects version control system.
The LSB group has maintained the policy of a "common standard"
- to not intentionally diverge the standards wording between ISO
and non-ISO. Issues that specifically related to the "ISO portion"
of LSB have at all relevant times had flags in the LSB issue tracking system.

The status is then that the ISO standard may be seriously outdated, and the 
PAS originator no longer has PAS status in ISO. There is however a
positive attitude in the LSB group to have a newer version approved
as an ISO/IEC standard, possibly version 4.1, if this could
be done with light use of ressources. The LSB would like to investigate
together with interested parties the process to accomplish this,
including procedures for maintenance, and would favour a process
that would involve very few ressources.
---