This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
>2.) The ISO PAS submission needs to happen before October.
> a.) there is a lot of value to having ISO certification since it
> can help Linux get into places it couldn't before like various
> governments, companies, and industries that require ISO
> b.) it can provide an advantage over non-ISO software. For example: a
> government might have a general policy to use ISO for something
> when it exists, but when it doesn't they can choose anything. So
> having an ISO certified Linux would mean in these cases they
> couldn't pick Microsoft anymore.
> c.) the PAS process opens a 6 month window for submittal which can be
> extended for 1 six month period. The PAS was applied for last
> October (when 2.0 was scheduled to release in January) and then
> extended, so the window closes this October. No one has ever missed
> their window before, but at the very least it would be a lot of
> paperwork to start the process over again.
>So these non-technical constraints are increasing the pressure to release.
>One can argue if they are really worth not waiting for an ideal solution.
This is doubly unfortunate. I do not think that the LSB 2.0rc1 spec
should be adopted as an ISO PAS.
>From my reading of ISO rules, it looks like an ISO PAS requires a TC/SC
to approve a new work proposal that results in a PAS. Can you tell me
which TC/SC agreed to this?