On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:52:41AM -0600, 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 enough out of date (and out of use: there was only very minimal uptake 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.
I understand your concerns, and have forwarded your concerns stated earlier to the other ISO experts. They should have discussed it today in a meeting in Seoul, but I was not able to understand what they concluded. we did look into market share of the lsb versions and noted that 5.0 was not so popular, anyway we went for 5.0 I have some idea that the lsb std could have ways to claim conformance to a specific version of lsb. and that we produce a lsb version that were useful to the market - with some updates. I don't know how much work this would take. Keld _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
