This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
On Iau, 2004-07-29 at 22:05, anderson@freestandards.org wrote:
> It would not be possible to release an LSB aligned with gcc 3.4 at this
> time as it does not meet the rest of our release criteria, which can be
> found on our website at http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/index.html.
That strikes me as funny to say the least. The ficticious kind of gcc
3.3 ABI currently proposed also fails the published criteria
It is not "best practice" as is clear from looking at the glibc/g++
team view
It is not a "stable ABI" - nothing implements it, and there is no
guarantee a gcc 3.3.5 will ever be releases that does
It does not meet "upstream co-operative". Upstream considers it a dead
end failure path never having published a release using the proposed
ABI.
It does not meet "component versions". Upstream considers it a dead end
failure path and has moved on to an incompatible ABI never having
published a release using the proposed ABI.
It does not meet "distribution maintainers cooperative". Upstream
considers it a dead end failure path and has moved on to an incompatible
ABI never having published a release using the proposed ABI.
Since you clearly value the considerations listed I move that on all
these basis C++ is struck from LSB 2.0 because it fails the LSB's own
basic published criteria.
It's time the LSB stops being a vendor lapdog and remembers that its
purpose is to standardise things in agreement with the community. No
agreement, no standard. Its hard but its the long term win. For all the
talk of LSB 3 and fixing it, with no help from the community the current
spec seeks to override there will be no LSB 3 because the community will
have to do its standardisation without the LSB so that it can get
technically sound results.
Alan