This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: LSB naming
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:28:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: LSB naming
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <410C273F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org.HOWL> <20040801000521.GZ5738@tofu.dreamhost.com> <email@example.com>
On Jul 31, 2004, at 4:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2004-08-01 at 01:05, Nathan Myers wrote:
It would be much more apt to call this thing the GSB, GNU Standard
The LSB is theoretically implementable without GNU components as well.
One of the goals is that you should be able to sit down with an army of
programmers and write an LSB compliant system from scratch. It should
sufficiently well documented for this to work.
That in essence is much of the original naming question.
I don't care about what the name of LSB/GSB/SB should be (note I like
operating system standard base). This is way offtopic from gcc
And if you want an official answer about GCC and OSSB talk to RMS as he
one who runs the GNU project and he already talked against it.