[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       osdl-lsb-discuss
Subject:    Re: [lsb-discuss] Qt 4 decision
From:       Markus Rex <msrex () suse ! de>
Date:       2007-09-06 11:16:35
Message-ID: 20070906111634.GS22324 () suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sep 05, 07 13:55:28 -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> My main concern is that we re-create "the RHEL 3 problem". Once we push 
> Qt4 to mandatory and obsolete the current version we will cut RHEL 4 as 
> a target for ISVs that must certify to LSB 3.2 due to other reasons.

... but if we don't do anything we remain on an old version which is
also not increasing the attractivity of the LSB as target for ISVs.
 
> I realize we need to move forward in some way, but think we should take 
> this opportunity to define a set of rules we can fall back on when we 
> come to this or similar juncture again in the future.

That is a very good idea. And we are open for input to put into a
proposal.

> If we can ever manage to push the LSB into a leading standard role the 
> problem will go away, but this will be difficult and time consuming.

You are right, I do not think this will happen soon enough. So we have
to do other things.

  Markus

> 
> Robert
> 
> Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >We've had the Qt 4 issue hanging for a while now, and the time has come
> >to make up our minds.  There has been some discussion of the issues of
> >upgrading Qt 4 to mandatory, and some responses (by, among others,
> >TrollTech, who has indicated they are willing to fix issues that need
> >fixing).
> >
> >So, it's time to hash it out and fix things, or decide finally that
> >we're not going to do it for some set of good reasons.
> >
> >As of now, the LSB position is that Qt 4 will become mandatory for LSB
> >3.2, subject to TrollTech's assistance in uplifting the standard such
> >that it covers the common set of Qt 4 ABIs shipping in the major distros
> >currently shipping in LSB 3.1-certified distros, and in otherwise fixing
> >QA issues in the current Qt 4 specs and tests.
> >
> >Questions:
> >
> > - TrollTech: can we count on your support?
> >
> > - Could those who have objected in the past summarize their objections
> >and rationales, or otherwise indicate if they've changed their minds?
> >
> >Let's please have this discussion on the list, if for no other reason
> >that it helps document the results in a public place.
> >_______________________________________________
> >lsb-discuss mailing list
> >lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
> >https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
> >  
> 
> -- 
> Robert Schweikert                       MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> (robert.schweikert@mathworks.com)                 LINUX
> The MathWorks Inc.
> Phone : 508-647-2042
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

-- 
Markus Rex   (msrex@suse.de)
Chief Technology Officer, The Linux Foundation 
http://www.linux-foundation.org/

It's much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]