[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