Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:58 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

> > > However, Ted Tso has proposed this already to the LSB working group. 
> > > See:
> > > http://mail.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-wg/2004-July/000233.html
> > Well, we can still make the recommendation.  It's up to the
> > FSG/LSB people to decide what to do with that recommendation.
>
> Well then.
>
> <queue sound of trumpets!>
>
> Hear ye, hear ye, we the undersigned GCC developers suggest that the
> FSG/LSB delay the C++ parts of LSB 2.0.
>
> <some more trumpet sounds!>
>
> Benjamin Kosnik
> Jeffrey A Law


<sarcasm>
Maybe we ought to put it in legalese or projectmanagerese terms, so
that the LSB can understand it.
</sarcasm>

The undersigned developers of the GNU compiler collection ("GCC 
developers" collectively, and individually) being of sound mind and 
body, do, on this 30th day of July, in the year 2004, register their 
formal opposition to C++ being a portion the LSB 2.0 standard.  Note 
that the GCC developers opposition to the C++ portion should not be 
viewed as approval of other portions of the LSB specification.  GCC 
developers reserve the right to formally oppose other portions of the 
spec at a later date and time, as they see fit.  The position of the 
undersigned developers should also not be viewed as the official 
position of the GCC project, as set forth by the GCC steering 
committee, however this is not meant to prevent the GCC steering 
committee from adopting or endorsing this position.  No guarantee of 
merchantability, fitness, or usefulness of any portion of the LSB spec 
is implied by any expression of their viewpoint, either for, or opposed 
to the LSB spec[1].



> (perhaps others)
>
> -benjamin

>

[1] This opposition may be void in certain states, such as Bizzaro LSB 
land, apparently.