Re: Testing of lsbdev and sample implementation
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Matt Taggart wrote:
> That seems wrong to me, not requiring it sort of taints the whole process.
> IMHO the LSB should at least have the *potential* of standing alone. It
> doesn't today, but that's because not enough is defined to make a working
> system, which is a different issue.
>
> Should it be required that lsb components be lsb conformant?
It can't be. One example is the C library itself. It makes system calls, and
accesses system databases whose format is intentially excluded. Libc itself
can never be conformant, but it does provide the interfaces needed to implement
the LSB. I'm probably not being careful enough on the terminology here, but
there is a difference between providing the interfaces, and using the
interfaces.
Commands are directly analagous, It doesn't matter how they are implemented,
and long as they provide the right interface when invoked.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
http://www.metrolink.com/ XFree86 Core Team
Reply to: