From nick at usenix.org Thu Oct 6 18:15:47 2005 From: nick at usenix.org (Nick Stoughton) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] test Message-ID: <1128647747.978.18.camel@collie> please ignore .... From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Mon Oct 24 09:11:21 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed Message-ID: The review period has closed on lsb-core 3.1, aka the ISO submission. There were no new problem reports. Once Nick turns the crank on the spec and whatever else he has to do, we need to vote on our willingness to submit this specification to ISO - it needs to be a fully approved spec. We need the FSG Board to vote as well, and it all pretty much needs to be done by Friday.... What can we do to facilitiate the SC vote going smoothly? -- mats From heffler at us.ibm.com Wed Oct 26 09:16:00 2005 From: heffler at us.ibm.com (Marvin Heffler) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I vote yes to approve the lsb-core 3.1 spec. Regards, Marvin Heffler Linux Standard Base IBM Linux Technology Center 11501 Burnet Road, Zip 905-7A017 Austin, TX 78758 (512) 838-0953 T/L 678-0953 lsb-sc-bounces@freestandards.org wrote on 10/24/2005 11:11:21 AM: > > The review period has closed on lsb-core 3.1, > aka the ISO submission. There were no new > problem reports. Once Nick turns the crank > on the spec and whatever else he has to do, > we need to vote on our willingness to submit > this specification to ISO - it needs to be > a fully approved spec. We need the FSG > Board to vote as well, and it all pretty much > needs to be done by Friday.... > > What can we do to facilitiate the SC vote > going smoothly? > > -- mats > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsb-sc mailing list > Lsb-sc@freestandards.org > http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/attachments/20051026/f9cfc303/attachment.htm From rajesh.banginwar at intel.com Wed Oct 26 09:14:02 2005 From: rajesh.banginwar at intel.com (Banginwar, Rajesh) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed Message-ID: I vote yes to approve the 3.1 core specs contingent upon two minor changes: remove ATK and Pango references from the table 2.1 Thanks, -Rajesh > -----Original Message----- > From: lsb-sc-bounces@freestandards.org [mailto:lsb-sc- > bounces@freestandards.org] On Behalf Of Wichmann, Mats D > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:11 AM > To: lsb-sc@freestandards.org > Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed > > > The review period has closed on lsb-core 3.1, > aka the ISO submission. There were no new > problem reports. Once Nick turns the crank > on the spec and whatever else he has to do, > we need to vote on our willingness to submit > this specification to ISO - it needs to be > a fully approved spec. We need the FSG > Board to vote as well, and it all pretty much > needs to be done by Friday.... > > What can we do to facilitiate the SC vote > going smoothly? > > -- mats > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsb-sc mailing list > Lsb-sc@freestandards.org > http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc From cyeoh at samba.org Wed Oct 26 22:33:01 2005 From: cyeoh at samba.org (Christopher Yeoh) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17248.26253.994381.4349@gargle.gargle.HOWL> I vote yes to approve. Though one thing I did notice is that sections 16.1 of the LSB-core (FHS section and /dev devices) is basically identical to what is in Section 6.1.3 of the FHS 2.3 (Linux annex of FHS). So it doesn't seem necessary. >From memory it originally wasn't in the FHS (2.2) but did get added later so probably can be removed from the LSB now since its not a difference from the FHS spec. Regards, Chris -- cyeoh@au.ibm.com IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Thu Oct 27 04:44:25 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed Message-ID: >I vote yes to approve. > >Though one thing I did notice is that sections 16.1 of the LSB-core >(FHS section and /dev devices) is basically identical to what is in >Section 6.1.3 of the FHS 2.3 (Linux annex of FHS). So it doesn't seem >necessary. > >>From memory it originally wasn't in the FHS (2.2) but did get added >later so probably can be removed from the LSB now since its not a >difference from the FHS spec. Can you drop a bugzilla on us so we don't forget to deal with this one? (Although not for this round) Thanks, Mats From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Thu Oct 27 05:01:53 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed Message-ID: I also vote to approve. From nick at msbit.com Thu Oct 27 10:39:37 2005 From: nick at msbit.com (Nick Stoughton) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] lsb-core 3.1 vote needed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1130434777.15544.2675.camel@collie> for the record, I also approve! On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 05:01, Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > I also vote to approve. > _______________________________________________ > Lsb-sc mailing list > Lsb-sc@freestandards.org > http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc