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 Sat, 31 Jul 2004 anderson@freestandards.org wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 anderson@freestandards.org wrote:
> >
> > > The purpose of the ISO PAS submittion, is to add legitimacy to Linux.
> > > There are groups of potential Linux users that are prohibited from
> > > considering Linux becasue it doesn't have an ISO stamp on it. Submitting
> > > the LSB to ISO will close this gap.
> >
> > What ISO standards for operating system binary interfaces are those groups
> > of potential users using at present?
>
> None for _binary_ interfaces.
>
> The commercial UNIXes and even MS Windows claim ISO/POSIX conformance for
> source APIs, which is sufficient to satisfy most procurment rules.
I can see the point of ISO LSB from the point of view of procurers bound
by rules requiring them to take the lowest bid and who want to ensure they
end up with Linux rather than Windows - but even without C++ the draft
seems to specify enough (complete with strfry, the standardization of
which can surely serve no other purpose) to make anyone offering something
other than Linux + glibc hard pressed to meet it save maybe through glibc
running on top of Linux kernel emulation as in *BSD. Likewise the value
to ISVs of having a standard to build software operable across multiple
distributions is clear - but for that purpose does it need to be ISO?
(Are the differences between the 3.3 C++ ABI and the multi-vendor ABI
specification documented somewhere in LSB, or has it been determined that
they have no impact on the ABI of libstdc++?)
But simply to add legitimacy to Linux for procurement rather than making
possible procurement that ensures the end result is Linux, the POSIX and
other ISO standards have existed for some time. There was even one
obscure POSIX-certified distribution around 1996. LSB requires the bulk
of the runtime of POSIX (including the odd bit glibc doesn't get right),
so what is the advantage of Linux supporting ISO LSB over Linux supporting
(most of the runtime parts of) ISO POSIX? (This is a comment purely on
the specific argument for having ISO LSB "to add legitimacy to Linux", not
on the other benefits of LSB.)
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)