C++ ABI aMAJORissue?How,in a libreware standard community?
Posted Aug 5, 2004 17:27 UTC (Thu) by
Duncan (guest, #6647)
In reply to:
LSB 2.0 and C++ by rriggs
Parent article:
LSB 2.0 and C++
> The company I work for is attempting to migrate
> applications from Solaris to Linux, and a major
> issue for us is the lack of standards for the C++ ABI.
Why is that such a /major/ issue? The middle letter of ABI of course
stands for binary, it's the /binary/ interface. How can that be a /major/
problem in a community defined by its open source (libre) nature? Ship the
source, and let the distribution or individual users compile it as
necessary, after running an appropriate configure script that detects all
the necessary stuff. Issue solved. (Granted, certain standardization
makes those configure scripts far less complex, but that's a /minor/
issue, not the /major/ one you're making yours out to be.)
Proprietary and can't do that? Anyone in that situation is by definition
creating their own problem by ignoring Linux community openness standards,
no matter /what/ other sort of "standards" label they may slap on their
product. IMO, they deserves any problems they have as a result, and no
special effort on the part of the community, IMO, need be made to ease
them.
As for the LSB, the first letter stands for Linux. One of the Linux
traditions is that "it'll be ready when it's ready." Yes, it'll hurt to
either drop the C++ part and hit the ISO date, or drop the ISO app and
start over, but in this case, "it's not ready." Thus, if the ISO process
must be restarted, or a compromise reached whereby the C++ definition
isn't included in the ISO version, so be it. That's the Linux way. By the
time the process is ready for ISO submission again, the C++ stuff should
be ready for it. Otherwise, take the Linux out and call it the PLSB
(POSIX-Like), or make it the IPSB (Intel Posix) and straight up require
the Intel compilers for all I care. It really doesn't deserve the Linux
moniker anyway if it primarily benefits proprietaryware folks, which is
what a /binary/ interface standard by definition does.
Duncan, now running an ATI Radeon 9200 with the open drivers, because the
dual video out doesn't work on the open NVidia drivers, because NVidia
refuses to provide specs, and I had enough of tainted kernels and
proprietaryware.
(
Log in to post comments)
