Re: Order of look-up for included interfaces
Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
> Andrew Pham wrote:
> > Since we received different pointers as to which standard to take as the
> > base reference, at different stages of our
> > 'documenting-included-interfaces' endeavor ; we would like to post the
> > exact order in which we look up stuffs. First, to make sure that we are
> > going down the right path; and second, so that anyone who has any other
> > suggestion/feedback; please lets us know.
> >
> > ORDER OF PRECIDENCE and LOOK-UP for a BASE-REFERENCE :
> > ( for reference and compare)
> >
> > 1) ISO-C99 (pay preview)
> > 2)SUSv3 www.opengroup.org/austin/
> > 3)SUSv2 http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xshix.html
> > ...
>
> IMHO it's not right for the LSB to reference any pay-per-view standard
> like ISO-C99. ESPECIALLY as the first standard in the list!
> Can we demote ISO-C99 to be further down in the list, or preferably,
> delete it entirely from the list?
ISO-C99 is more recent than SUSv2 and SUSv3 is not released yet.
Therefore it should be the first one from a logical point - especially
since standards might conflict with each other.
It's unfortunate that C99 is not freely available but after all LSB
describes C interfaces and therefore C99 is the right standard to
use.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj
Reply to: