Re: Linux-abi group

[anonymous <johnandsara2 at cox dot net>]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> <hegdesmailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
> > > <hegdesmailbox@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.
>
> That is exactly what Linux ABI group tries to address.  Please see
> the Linux gABI extension draft at
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI
>
> It describes the conventions and constraints on the implementa-
> tion of these extensions for interoperability between various tools.

Intel ABI allows abi for binary compatibility on intel machines - just 
copy bins no need to target compile.

Linux ABI?  linus already suggested this in even 1990's releases: 
warning: do not share your kernel headers with applications, they might 
abuse it and anyway software relying on it would break soon (be a waste 
of time) when new releases released

i just noticed myself the BEST PROTECTION against the need of ABI: is a 
kernel that has abi inside and offers fast exported features on "well 
known unix interfaces" to what otherwise would make software "machine 
dependant, fallible, and short lived"