This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh at samba dot org>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org,lsb-wg at freestandards dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:16:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com> <1091138135.1453.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <410C273F.8000401@bothner.com> <16652.11502.267811.377093@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20040801000521.GZ5738@tofu.dreamhost.com>
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 05:05:21PM -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 06:36:14PM -0500, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > As for the name - the motivation for the project primarily came from
> > people who used Linux kernel based systems, and the name ended up
> > including Linux.
>
> It would be much more apt to call this thing the GSB, GNU Standard Base.
While Nathan has a point (in almost all cases the LSB specifies the
behavior of GNU software, and not the behavior of the Linux kernel), it
isn't necessarily about GNU either (after all, the C++ ABI is based on a
negotiation that involved both GCC developers and proprietary compiler
vendors who compete with GCC), and I don't care to repeat the "GNU/Linux"
name fight again. BSD-based distributions or Solaris x86, with
appropriate packages, might well be able to meet the standard, or to come
sufficiently close that it still serves as a binary application
portability mechanism.