[lsb-discuss] Modularization design proposal
Denis Silakov
dsilakov at gmail.com
Sat Mar 31 07:57:14 UTC 2012
Looks quite sane to me. My only doubt is about 'Languages' module. My
understanding is that this one is primarily for interpreted/scripting
languages for which LSB declares not ABI (ELF libs/symbols) but some
'modules' or analogues, as well as interpreter and its environment. XML
doesn't fit into this category. Though maybe others have another vision;
finally nothing prevents us to review purpose/content of the Languages
module.
A thought about lsb-release - will it make sense to request submodule
without specifying its module name? I.e.,
lsb-release -p LSB-Toolkit-Qt
instead of
lsb-release -p LSB-Desktop:LSB-Toolkit-Qt
(or add another option for this possibility)?
In the example with trial-use LSB-Ruby it is pointed that submodule name
doesn't change when moving from TrialUse to 'usual' module. However,
users of lsb-release still will have to switch from
"LSB-TrialUse:LSB-Ruby" to "LSB-Languages:LSB-Ruby" or even to perform
both requests to check if LSB_Ruby is provided by the system.
Btw, as for comments concerning possible DB issues - I believe that
possible technical problems with LSB infrastructure should not be the
reason to reject good ideas. I am quite sure that we are able to resolve
any DB-related issue that would impede LSB progress:)
On 03/30/12 04:05, Robert Schweikert wrote:
> Nothing better to get my butt in gear than a looming deadline ;)
>
> I have completed the initial draft for the modularization proposal,
> see https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSBModularizationDesign .
> Unfortunately the uploading of pictures and inclusion is not working
> properly, see my earlier e-mail. The document should contain two
> figures indicated by File:.....png on the page. Both figures are
> attached to this mail.
>
> I have marked this task complete on our 5.0 tracking page and added a
> new task for us to discuss and finalize this by the beginning of May.
>
> As this item is on the agenda for our F2F next week it would be great
> if people could take a look and give this some thought. We can argue
> about this during the scheduled time at the F2F and then send a
> summary of the arguments to the list. For those not taking part in the
> F2F either in person or on the phone feel free to send comments to the
> list at your earliest convenience. Don't wait too long the May 02
> deadline is the latest date for finalization, if we're happy with a
> design sooner we'll mark it as done and move on to implementation. ;)
>
> Later,
> Robert
--
Regards,
Denis.
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list