cgl compliance

[dsulliva@xxxxxxxxxx (Dave Sullivan)]

Yes, that helps.

Thanks,

Dave

Joe MacDonald wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 15:23 -0400, Dave Sullivan wrote:
>> Ok, maybe a concrete example would be best.  For the CGL requirement below.
>>
>> AVL.5.3 	Process-Level Non-Intrusive Application Monitor 	P1 	OS 
>> Community Package 	Daemontools 	V0.76-6rph 	Yes
>>
>>
>> A package that is provided by the open source community (daemontools) 
>> that can be compiled and run as designed on a distro OS qualifies for 
>> compliance.  Is this true?
>>
>> As far as how the software package can be bundled on top of the core 
>> distro is a different issue
>>
>> Thanks for responding.  Does this make sense?
>>     
>
> Ah, yeah, okay, I got it now.  Yes it makes sense and yes you have it 
> right.
>
> There's actually two different ... I don't want to say classes of 
> qualification, but that's sort of what it is.
>
> For a requirement to reach P1 level (in the CGL 4.0 spec, earlier ones 
> were before I joined the group, so I don't know and post-4.0 is still 
> being discussed, so nothing is carved in stone yet) it has to have at 
> least one package / patch set in the open source community that is 
> well maintained.  Calling out daemontools in this case is a good 
> example because it hasn't seen much active development in the last few 
> years, but it does the job it needs to do, does it well enough to meet 
> the requirement and is open source, so it meets the criteria the CGL 
> WG decided to adopt for determining if something could be a P1.
>
> For a distribution vendor, though, there's no requirement that they 
> choose the open source option that the CGL WG has used as the 
> proof-of-concept.  There's nothing stopping anyone from writing a 
> completely different application that implements AVL.5.3 and using 
> that to meet the requirement.  And there's no requirement that an 
> individual vendor have an open source solution for a particular 
> requirement, it may be that the vendor has something they believe is a 
> better solution for their customers that happens to be closed source.  
> That level of freedom is still there if you want to take that route to 
> meet the CGL requirements.
>
> Does that help?
>
> -J.
>
>> -Dave
>>
>> Joe MacDonald wrote:
>> > Hi Dave,
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 14:19 -0400, Dave Sullivan wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I have a question in regards to CGL compliance.
>> >>
>> >> If there is an open source package that provides the functionality as 
>> >> described by a CGL requirement.  And that open source package and can be 
>> >> compiled and installed on the Registering Linux OS Applicant.  Does that 
>> >> count as compliance?
>> >>     
>> >
>> > I'm not quite getting your question, but I think it's just that I'm 
>> > missing where you're coming from.
>> >
>> > Consider a requirement:
>> >
>> >
>> >     RLB.1.0: Five Nines Reliability  P1
>> >
>> >     LF CGL specifies that carrier grade linux shall experience no more
>> >     than five minutes, twenty five seconds of down-time each calendar
>> >     year of use other than regularly scheduled maintenance periods.
>> >
>> >
>> > And now Cavendish Farms Linux does not claim CGL compliance, because 
>> > they have no way of ensuring they meet RLB.1.0.  Then along comes Bob 
>> > Software, who creates an application specifically for CFL that ensures 
>> > CFL will be able to meet RLB.1.0, which completes all of the P1 
>> > requirements CFL needs.
>> >
>> > Are you asking "Can CFL now claim CGL compliance even though they 
>> > don't ship it?"  Or are you asking "Can Bob Software claim CFL is now 
>> > CGL?"  Or is there something else you were wondering about what Bob's 
>> > application would mean to CFL and CGL?
>> >
>> >
>> > *Joe MacDonald*, Member of Technical Staff, *Wind River*
>> > direct 613.270.5750  mobile 613.291.7421  fax 613.592.2283  
>> >
>>
>>     
>
> *Joe MacDonald*, Member of Technical Staff, *Wind River*
> direct 613.270.5750  mobile 613.291.7421  fax 613.592.2283  
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Sullivan, RHCE#805007308829024  			
Consultant, GPS (Central, USA)
Mobile: 202-607-7694
Email: dsulliva at redhat.com

Red Hat #1 in value. Again.
----------------------------------------------------------