Re: [lsb-discuss] Does anyone care about LSB on arm?
At the risk of overstating the obvious, there are also ABI guarantees
at stake here, which in my mind are architecture agnostic. OpenGL
applications need to know which bits (API functions) of which core
versions can be expected to be resolved during load time and which
must be queried through GetProcAddress. LSB specifies this and makes
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Jeff Licquia <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 07:25 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> so in _that_ regard, the question becomes: "are the efforts of the
>> free software community better off being spent elsewhere"? and "what
>> benefit is there *TO THE FREE SOFTWARE COMMUNITY* of doing LSB for
>> ARM"? forget the proprietary junkies, they'll suck anything from us
>> that moves and not give a dime in return.
> That seems to be my cue to provide the community case for the LSB.
> The LSB provides several things to the community:
> - a framework for allowing Linux distributions to pool their userbase and
> work together as one platform instead of multiple platforms, one per distro
> - test suites which identifies both compatibility problems and outright
> bugs to be detected and fixed
> - a method for targeting builds at multiple distributions at once, both
> proprietary and free
> - reporting tools for finding portability problems in built apps, again for
> both proprietary and free apps
> We currently provide all of this for 7 architectures. ARM benefits
> indirectly (for example, many of the compatibility breaks detected on, say,
> x86_64 will affect all archs equally), but indirect support doesn't include
> the tools we've developed, and often compatibility issues are arch-specific.
> linaro-dev mailing list