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: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- Cc: Matt Taggart <taggart at carmen dot fc dot hp dot com>,anderson at freestandards dot org, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:34:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407291552020.21442@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com> <1091136754.1487.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20040730000214.29AE137D8D@carmen.fc.hp.com> <1091143429.1604.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The LSB is supposed to consider both the community and the vendors. The
> vendors have a current position and its clear that the vendor position
> is v5. The glibc and g++ development world apparently prefers v6. They
> don't go away by not being "runtime implementors" or not having votes
> that count in the LSB.
I don't care if a stopgap LSB based on 3.3.5 is adopted with the
understanding that a replacement (based on v6) is in the works. If this
is done, it would be only fair for the LSB document to warn about the
problems and to limit the life of the specification somehow. As for the
GCC team, I'd like the focus to be on making sure that the mistakes of the
past are not repeated.