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

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 10:18, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

> Given these developments, I think the FSG might want to re-think some of
> their previous assumptions. If this means delaying the C++ bits of LSB
> 2.0, then I think that is a step that should be honestly considered.
> It's far better to have no specification than a flawed one.
Maybe that's the recommendation we (the GCC developers) should make
to FSG/LSB.  Delay the C++ bits until we can reach some kind of 
agreement on what the right bits for the standard ought to be.

jeff