[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:18:15 -0400
From: Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Will musl work as a lsb alternative? (was Re: re:
musl setup attempt)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:21:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > Could you elaborate on what you mean by "sticking with LSB"? LSB is a
> > specification for ABI, filesystem layout, etc. -- basically, what apps
> > can expect from a "Linux system" -- not really a tool in itself.
>
> Actually, (putting on my LSB hat, being a participant in the
> weekly call for many years) the LSB also ships a tool kit to
> verify that needed interfaces are exposed and so forth. It
> has sample LSB conformant applications that are build as part
> of the test harness process
>
> It can be grafted into a buildbot, and deviations from
> conformance readily identified
> http://www.linuxbase.org/buildbot/builders/
>
> Joining the LSB working group is as easy as joining the call
> and participating. I have a monthly post with more details in
> our minutes. For more info see the bottom of the email at:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2013-February/007560.html
>
> which lists many of those ways to participate
>
> -- Russ herrold
Glancing at this wiki, I see things like "libQtSvg ... mandatory since
3.2" and it makes me not want to have anything to do with the LSB.
khm
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
