[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian CGL registration

On 06/05/06 23:59, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> I don't know how much work this is but given that the registration
> document is rather long, do you think you could prepare an overview

The simplified registration doc is on linuxdevices[1]. Sarge is mostly
compliant with 2.0.2. Missing LSB compliance, and a slightly older
glibc are most of the missing functionality.

> where sarge falls short (and if the same applies for etch)?

Looking at etch is the next step, against CGL 2.0.2 as well as the
newer CGL specification  3.2. This is where the current/future is at.

[1] http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7888570325.html


Attachment: pgpPjt3NBLpaQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: