This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
Cc: Matt Taggart <taggart at carmen dot fc dot hp dot com>, anderson at freestandards dot org, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
Date: 30 Jul 2004 20:47:34 +0200
Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
Organization: Integrable Solutions
References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0407291552020.21442@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com><1091136754.1487.26.camel@localhost.localdomain><20040730000214.29AE137D8D@carmen.fc.hp.com><1091143429.1604.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

[...]

| > So given the constraints does anyone have an alternative plan? What would 
| > it look like?
| 
| I'd like to know exactly where the C++ ABI community people draw their
| lines. "I oppose" is the easier bit, now what is the "but I would
| accept..."

I consider that the C++ part of LSB-2.0 needs more work and I would
remove my opposition if LSB people accept either
   (1) delaying the final vote on LSB-2.0, to allow for more time to
       make progress; or
   (2) postpone the C++ bits to LSB-3.0.

-- Gaby

References:
- opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: anderson
- Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: Alan Cox
- Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: Matt Taggart
- Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: Alan Cox

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]