<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3429" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>As far as I know, AppChecker has boxes to submit "errors"
as "request for future LSB feature" - I haven't looked at this in detail but
predecessor tools (atk-manager) had this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I'm assuming from the rest of the context "kernel API"
means an interface for drivers to use. If such a thing truly stabilizes,
then someone could propose to include it; while LSB has been asked for it many
many times, I can say as an internal statement - maybe this is not what you pass
on - that LSB is not working on that with anyone right now.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I think dkms is considered an interim solution until other
things evolve (as discussed above). I'd say if it's really considered
interim it would be unlikely for LSB.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This sounds negative; the essence is that LSB has
been focused on a different layer of application portability than is implied by
talking directly to the kernel. I *know* there are applications that have
a driver component, and those have always seemed problematic for the apps which
have a driver piece. It would take some sort of conscious decision for LSB
to start focusing on that area, which doesn't mean it couldn't happen
someday.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=290134118-12122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
lsb-discuss-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
[mailto:lsb-discuss-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Brian Proffitt<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:42
AM<BR><B>To:</B> lsb-discuss<BR><B>Subject:</B> [lsb-discuss] Question from an
AppChecker user...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>One of the respondents from the AppChecker survey had a few questions
I wanted to forward to the group:<BR><BR>o Did you have any request form about
intégration of exteral library like pcap/libcurl in LSB ?<BR>o Any plan to
introduce a kernel stabilized API in conjuction with kernel team ? I also known
that is under way in kernel team, but did you plan to support it explicitly
?<BR>o Or maybe, as first step to LSBize dkms building framework.<BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Brian Proffitt<BR>Community Manager<BR>Linux
Foundation/Linux Developer Network<BR><BR>AIM: StartXScribe<BR></BODY></HTML>