From The Linux Foundation
Contents |
LSB Plenary Meeting
The LSB Workgroup held the 2005 Plenary Meeting, August 8 3pm-7pm, concurrent with Linux World Expo. The meeting was held at IBM's downtown San Francisco office at 425 Market St., San Francisco, room 19A. Thanks to IBM for hosting this event!
Attendees: please help generate notes for the meeting!. Edit this page or, if you don't have rights, add your notes to the Comment page linked at the bottom of this page.
Final Agenda
- Opening, Welcome and Introductions
- LSB Project Status reports
- LSB 3.0 (Mats Wichmann, Jim Zemlin)
- Desktop (see DesktopWG) (Rajesh Banginwar)
- kde comments
- Futures (Arthur Tyde)
- ISO Ballot (see IsoBallot) (Nick Stoughton)
- Spec/Tools/Sample Implementation overview (Mats Wichmann)
- DWARF project overview (Michael Eager)
- Future Directions / Roundtable Discussions
- Roadmap Review
- LSB 4.0
- lsbinstall
- Security
- Managability
- Future Plenary Meetings
Meeting Notes
Attendees
- Rajesh Banginwar, Intel
- Mats Wichmann, Intel
- Nick Stoughton, FSG
- Nilesh Jain, Intel
- Patanjali Somayaji, Codito
- Amanda !McPherson, FSG
- Jeff Waugh, Canonocial
- Mike Perry, FSG
- Jim Zemlin, FSG
- Ted T'so, IBM
- Michael Eager, Eager Consulting
- Arthur F. Tyde III, FSG
- Steven Vander, CA
- Ashutosh Sharma, Adobe
- Stew Benedict, Mandriva (phone)
- Marvin Heffler, IBM (phone)
- Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE (phone)
LSB 3.0
Mats reviewed the current state of LSB 3.0 (released) and certification (active, with several distros apparently in progress, based on style of bugreports - identity of certification candidates is hidden during the process).
LSB Desktop discussion
The presentation is available at attachment:LSBDesktopUpdate.odp.
The discussion centered around inclusion of libQt in LSB. Multiple options were considered including
- Trolltech changing their licensing criteria
- LSB changing its licensing criteria to include GPL libraries
- Not including libQt and letting ISVs link it statically
- As a last resort consider creation of libQt ABI standard that LSB can refer to without endorsing it.
We also talked about how and why it is a bad idea to change LSB licensing criteria as it will affect the closed source application development. There were comments about how this is not an issue about LSB taking sides but just following the licensing criteria it has. One participant made a comment about inclusion of GTK not affecting KDE platform as most of the KDE desktops have GTK libraries installed so that gnome applications can be run. Another participant pointed out that restarting the toolkit wars or taking sides is the LAST thing LSB want to do. LSB is open to any and all libraries provided the licensing criteria is satisfied.
We decided to continue this discussion on mailing lists and LSB destkop calls. Please stay tuned.
ISO Ballot
The ISO ballot status presentation is available as an !OpenOffice.org 1.0 presentation at attachment:lwe2005.sxi.
DWARF Status Overivew
The DWARF Workgroup has been meeting every two weeks by telephone to resolve issues with DWARF Version 3. We have completed review and resolution of all current issues and have produced a draft of the document for committee review.
We plan to publish the public review draft on October 1 with a deadline for public comments of December 1.
lsbinstall
lsbinstall discussion: the general consensus seemed to be to specify paths and utilities required for postintallation wherever possible, rather than to continue inventing additional utilities (i.e. lsbinstall). We should only go with lsbinstall if there really is no alternative. One participant offered the opinion that this was one space where if a standard provided guidance to distros on where to put things, they would follow it, even if it was a change from their current practice.
Future meetings
Some discussion about when/where it makes sense to hold a future plenary. There was sentiment in favor of holding it sooner, rather than later, e.g. maybe in six months. The options before/during/after a show (most likely Linux World) were all noted as having weaknesses. As with this time, before will miss people who haven't come in yet, after will miss people who head back right after the show, and during would need to be an evening, where one may be competing with other events. It seemes like the best way to work around this is lots of notice so people include it in travel plans. An event after the show can use the show time to invite more attendees, and with no consensus, this seemed to be slightly favored by those present. Although a small minority preferred meeting at LCA in January, the larger group thought attendance would be poor if the meeting is held in New Zealand (the site of LCA 2006). The larger group suggested we look at LWE Boston in April.
To add comments to this page, click on [wiki:PlenaryMeeting2005/Comments User Comments] and select edit.
[[Include(PlenaryMeeting2005/Comments)]]