On 8/22/19 1:52 PM, Mats Wichmann wrote: > On 8/22/19 12:07 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> no substantive changes, we want to agree with you guys before >> any substantive changes are made, so that ISO LSB === LF LSB. >> >> Keld > > I understand the benefits in genreal of such a staged plan, but what > remains of the core team is concerned that the current state of LSB is > enough out of date (and out of use: there was only very minimal uptake > of LSB 5.0 in industry, while the now 8-year-old 4.1 was far more > popular) that it's maybe not in a state that makes it a good candidate > for ISO standardization.
It is basically impossible for any reasonably modern distribution to be LSB 5.0 compliant. There are issues all the way around. Creating an ISO standard out of a specification that is outdated is not really useful, IMHO. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Architect LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud [email protected] IRC: robjo
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
