Re: PROPOSAL: API for device locking library.
> Security issues are still open, but the intent to proposing it to LSB is
> not to "freeze an implementation", but only one API, leaving
> implementation details undefined.
Its important you freeze an API only after the implementation is in active
use and enough applications have been ported that you can be happy with it.
> The goal is to have all applications that want to lock a device load a
> library with a certain name, and use the functions defined in this API.
> Then each vendor is free to supply his own solution, as far as it comply
> with the API, permitting even binary-only applications to use the
> library.
Yes. I support this wholeheartedly but its a bad idea to set a standard
until its demonstrably functioning well. Thats why TCP/IP works and OSI doesnt
If there are working implementations and people using them fine on whole
systems (ie screen/minicom/mgetty/.. are all patched for the library and it
works nicely) then I withdraw any objection
Reply to: