Russ Herrold (Owl River), Stew Benedict (LF), Robert Schweikert (Suse), Steve McIntyre (Linaro), Mats Wichmann (Intel), Jeff Licquia (LF), Wookey (Linaro), Jon Masters (Red Hat)
Some discussion of the mechanics of how to proceed with ARM
Currently there's a patchset for the database, from that are generated a branch of the checkers (misc-test) and of the build tools (build_env)
The ARM database bits are not pushed to the LSB Navigator (although a local instance of the navigator could be set up which would show them)
these are at http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/unofficial/arm. The "patch" is in the same directory as add-arm.sql (not a bzr branch, just a file)
Jeff: 4.0 refresh. List of things to release (tests), azov-qt4, desktop, c++, olver-core, perl, python, t2c-c++, t2c-desktop, xts5. Selected bits of appbat. Downloading to sign and release.
Jeff: Anything else on 4.0 refresh?
Mats: Were the bugs cleaned up?
Stew: 3 left open, closed 1 moved 2 out to another refresh.
Jeff: Question remains whether we do another 4.0 update after this one, since 4.1 is out and we usually try to "maintain" only the latest released plus the one we're developing for. This question still hasn't really been answered.
Mats: Brings up the question, how do we get the distributions to bump up to 4.1? We should probably file bugs at various (community) distros requesting the upgrade. Debian is particularly far off, still on 3.2. RH 6.1 fixed the 6.0 bug that didnt have the right deps for LSB 4.0
Jeff: FHS. Posted a rationale, "this is what needs to happen". Doesn't seem to be controversial. Have gone through some of the bugs, fixed a few. Time to do more work on it.
Jeff: Need to work out FHS governance, going forward.
Jeff: Anything else on FHS?
Jeff: LSB 5.0. Plans: Drop Qt3, proposals to be less lagging, do things differently (profiles) (synopsis for new people on the call).
Jeff: Comments on 5.0?
Robert: We started a list, need to work on that and start moving on it.
Jeff: Need to resolve the question on the 2 proposals (from collab summit), so we can move forward.
Jeff: proposal to be less lagging should be part of 5.0. The profiles/tools proposal may or may not be part of 5.0, can be it's own track.
Robert: I thought we agreed that modularization would be part of 5.0 (expose existing LSB modules)
Jeff: yes. May be some issues with exposing modules to 4.x and earlier; will solve when we get to it.
Russ: communication issues with what LSB to follow? "You can ignore these parts of the new LSB."
Jeff: we should communicate that with LSB versions. More aggressive distros should target newer versions of the LSB. Conservative distros will still have 4.x.
Robert: We're basically accepting the current status quo: enterprise distros really don't update their LSB stuff anyway.
discussion on how to translate the current task/priority list into action
Jeff: perhaps go to a time-based release
Robert: Since we're proposing to break binary compatibilty, I think we need to do the features and set the date appropriately
Jeff: will continue the release schedule discussion on the list
End Of Call