[lsb-discuss] Thoughts on LSB ISO standard

Robert Schweikert rjschwei at suse.com
Mon Jul 30 23:36:48 UTC 2012

First sorry for missing last weeks call, and I will also miss the next 
call as I will be away again.

On 07/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> - LSB has often been criticised for not covering enough of Linux "common"
>> functionality; since LSB-core is a subset of full LSB, that question should
>> be even larger for whether LSB-core is actually useful as an ISO standard.
>> At the same time, there has also been the very real debate about whether
>> an LSB specification which includes "desktop" elements is an appropriate
>> requirement for server-oriented installations of LSB.
> Isn't this is a question that the LSB itself has to already answer for certification?
> I would imagine that the ISO document would follow an already established answer.
> For example the ISO LSB could be lsb-core, with all other functionality grouped
> into optional Annexes.
> Alternatively you could publish multiple documents one for each part of the LSB
> and make them different standard.

Nope, I am very strongly opposed to having multiple standards. There can 
be multiple ISO standards, I really have no strong opinion about that as 
I believe we gain little to no benefit of having ISO LSB and further I 
believe that our "target customers" (ISVs) do not care about ISO 

As far as LSB and LSB certification, as we know it today is concerned I 
believe it to be of high importance that there is only one. If the LSB 
is broken apart as a compliance/certification standard we end up with a 
mess and the value promise that we make gets lost.

My $0.02

Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei at suse.com
rschweik at ca.ibm.com

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list