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

[Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>]

On Sul, 2004-08-01 at 01:12, Joe Buck wrote:
> Exactly; for all practical purposes the LSB project is producing an ABI
> standard for Posix on x86-compatible CPUs, and has almost nothing to do
> with the Linux kernel.  

And ia64, and x86-64 and powerpc and I've probably forgotten one or two
along the way.

> GCC is a multi-platform compiler, it is not the "Linux compiler".

The LSB can become a multiplatform/multi-kernel standard. Perhaps that
is a discussion the LSB, FSF, *BSD and other parties should have at some
later point ?

> All that said, I will offer my personal, non-official opinion:
> 
> the LSB C++ standard as proposed seems to be falling between two stools:
> 3.2.x-based systems are widely deployed at the moment; 3.4-based
> distributions are now coming out, and it seems that LSB wants to
> standardize on a not-yet-existing 3.3.5, which Gaby is being asked to
> produce based on LSB specifications (a sensitive topic in itself, as the
> FSF may object).  Unfortunately, there have been problems with the C++ ABI
> standard: both errors in the standard itself, and bugs in GCC that mean we
> did not correctly implement the standard.  I am particularly troubled
> because it means that LSB will be locking in the last version of GCC
> before we fixed the C++ parser, meaning that the old parser will have to
> be maintained indefinitely.

Thank you.