On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 10:29 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > Matt Taggart wrote: > >>Also is Debian interested in skipping LSB 2.0 compliance and moving > >>straight to LSB 3.0? > > > > I don't think so because sarge can't be 3.0 compliant (glibc isn't new > > enough > > among other things) so I think 2.0 for sarge and 3.0+ for etch. > > Have you seen this? > > http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/06/16/a-new-approach-to-the-lsb/ > http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/06/16/a-new-approach-to-the-lsb-part-2/ > > In other words, we're working on a way to make sarge LSB 3.0 compliant > without having to introduce an updated libc (and break compatibility).
Hey, that's what the "special linker name" is there for. Someone argued very convincingly for it a long ways back, and a few distros even used to provide a parallel glibc with it, but it's not been used much recently and we've actually had to fight off some criticism to keeping it around. By the way, if people think we should be more conservative in glibc "advancement", it would be good to let the LSB project know that. There hasn't been a lot of negative input on the LSB2 and LSB3 requirements in that area, and some fairly vocal pleas to move forward because of what was claimed to be crucial support on certain architectures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
