On Friday 18 April 2008 16:05:56 Jeff Licquia wrote: > Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote: > > Now that I reread this, shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if you are LSB 3.2 certified > > for sure you are CGL, but if you are CGL then by definition you do not fulfill LSB 3.2 requirements.... > > For *applications*, Dan had it right. An application that uses no more > than the CGL subset interfaces will comply with the full LSB, since the > CGL subset interfaces are all part of the full LSB. But an app > certified against full LSB could, say, use interfaces from GTK+, which > would not be part of the CGL subset. > > You are entirely correct, of course, when describing distributions. > > Well, I thought that we were talking about certifications for distributions... after all the main reason this was proposed was to certify distributions such as Montavista. Are we talking about creating a special certification for ISVs? -- Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara carlos.duclos at trolltech.com QA Team Lead