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


On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:05:12AM -0500, Philip Rackus wrote:
> I've been following this thread closely, and I'm wondering if there isn't room
> for compromise.
> If everyone agrees that eventually the goal of the LSB is to define different
> level of standards, how much extra time would it take to define a base spec
> (without X) called ..say LSB 1.0, and the spec including X called LSB 1.1 ?  In
> this scenario 1.0 would basically be a subset of the 1.1 - so a distribution
> that is 1.1 certified would by default be 1.0 certified as well.

That gave me another thought. LSB would probably evolve over
the years, so we should make room for this evolvement over time,
and also cater for any problems that ISVs would have to migrate 
between the LSB versions over time. Something like avoiding
the major hazzle of libc5/glibc2. 

And I would also like to propose that we do a versioning of
the standard. Posslibly like The Open Group did for Unix
(and POSIX is going to do (and Micros...)) - name them after the
year released. This would also mean that we should only release
a new standard for LSB every 2 or 3 years (like The Open Group, 
POSIX (and Micros..) do, so that the ISVs have a stable market 
to issue their software to. So if we have two levels, with and
without X:

LSB 2000 X
LSB 2000 shell

And then we should maybe think about a better name than
"LSB", just as good as Linux, or Unix (or Windows), easily
pronouncable, maybe "Linux Base (2000)" or just Linux 2000.

Kind regards
Keld Simonsen

Reply to: