Mats wrote: > I understand the benefits in general 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 that the current state of LSB is enough out of date (and out of use: there 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.
As an industry user of LSB, who's very keen on the concept, I have to agree. I work for a large ISV, producing software components that are essentially math libraries, and thus very suitable for LSB. We've been forced to abandon LSB for libraries written in C++, because there isn't sufficient support for C++11. GCC has the support, as do the other platforms we support (Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, Solaris), and it became counter-productive to avoid C++11 because LSB couldn't do it. I'm still producing C libraries with LSB 5.0, which I can manage because the only libraries I use are glibc and libgcc_s. However, this requires care to allow C++ stack unwinding to work through C call stacks, and I fear that when I next upgrade my build environment (currently CentOS 7) to one with GCC 7.x or later, I'll have to give up LSB for that, too. I was able to persuade some other groups within the company producing similar libraries to use LSB, for a while, but I was never able to interest the groups producing Linux applications in using LSB. The lack of Motif support would have required writing entire new GUIs to be compatible with LSB, and that never looked like an attractive proposition, since the Linux versions of those applications never achieved much market share. LSB is at a point now where it can either be left to decline, or re-vitalized. The latter requires the Linux Foundation to either see it as a priority, or transfer the project to someone with money and energy to push it forwards. -- John Dallman DI SW TO OT PC PDE Technology & Innovation Nullius in verba Siemens Industry Sector Siemens Industry Software Limited Francis House, 112 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PH, United Kingdom Tel. :+44 (1223) 371554 Fax :+44 (1223) 371700 [email protected] www.siemens.com/plm > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <lsb-discuss- > [email protected]> On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann > Sent: 22 August 2019 18:53 > To: [email protected]; Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] ISO LSB standard > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > lsb-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss ----------------- Siemens Industry Software Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 3476850. Registered office: Faraday House, Sir William Siemens Square, Frimley, Surrey, GU16 8QD. _______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
