This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: LSB naming
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- Cc: Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>,Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh at samba dot org>, 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 17:34:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: LSB naming
- 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> <1091315804.7486.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:16:46AM +0100, 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 Base.
>
> The LSB is theoretically implementable without GNU components as well.
Agreed, though since the LSB for the most part specifies the behavior of
existing GNU tools, GNU-based systems have a huge head start.
The LSB is really an ABI for Posix with some additional detail specified.
Once you get to the point of multiple GNU/Linux distros capable of running
the same programs, why stop there? BSD-based systems already are capable
of running most LSB-conformant executable apps.
If there's to be a name change, it seems to me that people will never
agree unless neither "Linux" nor "GNU" appears in the name. Don't forget
that it was RMS who coined the term "Posix" last time a compromise of this
sort was needed.