This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:06:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <410C273F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sul, 2004-08-01 at 00:11, Per Bothner wrote:
> The opinion of the FSF (I don't remember RMS's exact wording) is that
> a "Linux Standard Base" is not relevant to GNU.
Thats why I asked what the gcc steering committee thought not what RMS
thought. The steering committee at least know a bit about the LSB
> In fact, it's kind of strange: LSB seems to be trying to define an
> application binary interface (in the general sense, including file
> system standards), for which the choise of kernel should have no
> relevancy (except for marketing).
You can perfectly well build an LSB compliant system without using the
Linux kernel. That has always been considered important. This is getting
off the relevant topic however. If someone turns up with a FreeBSD that
meets the spec and wants to argue that the naming is wrong good for
them, they will have a point.