[Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Benjamin Kosnik]

>> Given these developments, I think the FSG might want to re-think some of
>> their previous assumptions. If this means delaying the C++ bits of LSB
>> 2.0, then I think that is a step that should be honestly considered.
>> It's far better to have no specification than a flawed one.
>Maybe that's the recommendation we (the GCC developers) should make
>to FSG/LSB.  Delay the C++ bits until we can reach some kind of 
>agreement on what the right bits for the standard ought to be.

Sounds good to me. 

However, Ted Tso has proposed this already to the LSB working group. See:
http://mail.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-wg/2004-July/000233.html

-benjamin