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
At 2004/7/29 17:56-0700 Nathan Myers writes:
> > So given the constraints does anyone have an alternative plan? What would
> > it look like?
>
> It seems clear that standardizing an ABI that hasn't been deployed
> would be a mistake. It also seems clear that standardizing an ABI
> that is already a dead end would be a mistake. If v5 is to be part
> of the LSB, it should be one that existing third-party programs
> already link against. But v6 must be in there too, so that the
> spec has some longevity.
I'd like to clarify the understanding of what it means for the LSB to
standardise on the v5 ABI. For LSB 2.0 to adopt the v5 ABI does *not*
mean that the LSB specification will keep this ABI forever and never
upgrade. Major LSB version numbers are allowed to break ABI
compatability, so 3.0 would likely be v6, or depending on the timing,
perhaps even v7.
Neither does this imply that a distribution can not in the future be
both LSB 2.0 and LSB 3.0 complaint at the same time, therefore
preserving binary compatibility for older applications and allowing
newer (or rebuilt applications) to take advantage of better
performance and features.
Chris
--
cyeoh@samba.org