On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 01:32 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:25 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > sooo... although the situation *right now* is that nobody in the
> > commercial world is the slightest bit interested in LSB because they
> > all do "custom builds" of complete software stacks, it could be said
> > that *if* the free software community just dropped ready-to-go LSB
> > standards in front of their noses, they'd quite likely use it.
> The reason we're discussing this is because a new architecture isn't
> going to be supported in standards like LSB overnight. It might take
> some time, and by that time, things may have changed with respect to the
> adoption of ARM systems. But if we don't think ahead, we're forced to be
> reactionary and try to do this (probably less effectively) later on.
> Nobody will be forced to adopt LSB, but general purpose distributions
> can benefit from having compatibility at the software level. Is this an
> issue for deeply embedded platforms? Not so much. Is it bad that Android
> rebuilds the Universe? It's their decision to make. I think we need to
> distinguish between traditional embedded uses of ARM parts, which will
> continue, and those of larger parts running general a purpose OS. I
> don't expect to see Fedora running on my cellphone, but I do have it
> running on a netbook quite nicely - the latter needs LSB more.
> I'll leave the rest of the rhetoric alone
Further discussion will be copied to arm@ and not necessarily here
(unless someone includes the devel@ on CC) so please do sign up there if
you are interested:
I just forwarded some more notes on LSB additions for ARM. A great deal
of other standardization work is ongoing at the moment, and I'll forward
some more stuff to ARM list in due course.
devel mailing list