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
- From: Jim Kingdon <kingdon at panix dot com>
- To: jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
- Cc: anderson at freestandards dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:57:01 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0407291552020.21442@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com><m3wu0lqqzw.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><Pine.LNX.4.58.0407301849440.28068@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0407311904580.17902@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><Pine.LNX.4.58.0407311551160.28068@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407312034070.18166@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
> the draft seems to specify enough (complete with strfry, the
> standardization of which can surely serve no other purpose) to . . .
Not to distract people from the main flamewar, but I've submitted this
one as a bug in the LSB:
http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414
To make a long story short, in the early days of the LSB there was
often a fair bit of confusion/randomness about which GNU extensions to
include and which ones not. Some of this has been cleaned up
(e.g. command options - a lot were deprecated in LSB 1.3 and removed
in 1.9), but other parts haven't gotten as much attention.