Re: [PATCH] lsb: Include runtime languages module

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Flo,

[Re:  [PATCH] lsb: Include runtime languages module] On 17.01.27 (Fri 18:27) Florian Heigl wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > Am 27.01.2017 um 15:35 schrieb Joe MacDonald <Joe_MacDonald@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > Modern systems rely heavily on runtime languages that had not
> > traditionally been used in large-scale environments.  The LSB requirement
> > should be updated to reflect that new reality.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe MacDonald <joe_macdonald@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > cgl_5.0_requirements.rst                       | 18 ++++++++++--------
> > cgl_5.0_testing-documentation-requirements.rst | 18 ++++++++++--------
> > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> [..]
> > +|  The developer may choose to implement more than one architecture platform.  |
> > +|  In this case, each supported architecture platform shall contain an         |
> > +|  implementation of at least one architecture specific LSB-Core module and    |
> > +|  one LSB-Runtime Languages module.                                           |
> 
> 
> what is your experience how flexible is the LSB language module with
> the versions?  I just had some encounter on CentOS where no single
> version of Ruby packaged for CentOS was usable to the devs.  It was
> all far too outdated, and we had to avoid using the standard Ruby.

I think that's frequently the case with any distro, there will always be
newer packages you (as a developer) would like to have.  That's
something to be worked out between the distro vendor and their customer,
our role in the CGL workgroup would be just to specify that a reasonable
CGL distro should (or must, if we accept the proposed change I have sent
out here) be offering *some* runtime language support and leave versions
and configuration up to the distribution itself.

So, for this specific discussion, we would be saying the following:

   - CGL Distributions must provide a python interpreter version 2.4.2
     or later and the following modules:

      - array binascii bisect cPickle cStringIO cmath codecs collections
        crypt csv datetime errno exceptions fcntl gc grp heapq hotshot
        imp itertools locale marshal mmap operator os ossaudiodev parser
        posix pwd random re resource select signal socket string sys
        syslog termios thread time unicodedata weakref zipimport zlib 

   - CGL Distributions must provide a perl interpreter version 5.8.8 or
     later and the modules listed at
     https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Languages/LSB-Languages/perlymodules.html
     (I'm not going to list them all here, but it's not a lot.)

And versions of libxml2 and libxslt that provide a minimum set of
interfaces.  I don't think that additional requirement makes the
specification much more difficult to implement for anyone and I think it
does require something that I think any distro customer would want and
expect to be present in a modern Linux distribution anyway.

That is just my opinion on it, though, it's open to debate of course.

> Sorry for the stupid question, I know I’m not up to date on this.

Not at all, I'm not particularly up to date on the LSB 5.0 modules
either, so it's definitely good to have the discussion.

-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Lf_carrier mailing list
Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux