Linux-abi group

[Suprateeka R Hegde via cfe-commits]

On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> <hegdesmailbox at gmail.com> wrote:
>> H.J,
>>
>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This
>> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
>> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtml
>>
>> The Intro on LSB says:
>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/elfintro.html
>>
>> And thats what this proposal is intended for.
>>
>> And we can use the LSB mailing list
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss for all
>> discussions.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> LSB lists extensions which have been implemented.  But it isn't a spec
> you can use to implement them.  For example:
>
> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/progheader.html
>
> lists PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, PT_GNU_STACK and PT_GNU_RELRO.
> But it gives no details.  Linux ABI group is the place where we propose
> extensions before they get implemented.

How to implement, according to me, is design details of a particular 
product. It also depends on the language used to develop the product. 
Standards, in most cases, are not tied to a language and hence do not 
enforce implementation details.

For instance, the document "ELF Handling of Thread Local Storage" is a 
technical whitepaper that encourages a way of implementation. It is not 
an official extension.

I meant, use LSB mailing lists for proposals and after implementation, 
update the LSB for all future references. If there is a need to show 
implementation details, it should be a separate document.

My suggestion is to create something for all (entire Linux and not just 
ABI) and make the ABI part of it. So as per your description of LSB, we 
need a namespace something like LSB-Draft where entire Linux community 
can discuss proposals and ABI is part of it.

Also, another namespace within LSB that holds documents showing example 
implementations.

As we see through this discussion, there are many mailing lists and 
groups with lot of overlaps. I think we have to prevent more such 
fragmentation.

These are the thoughts I had. Bottom line is that, a standard is always 
welcome. It is beneficial to all across industry.

--
Supra