gnu-gabi group (Was: Re: Linux-abi group)

[Suprateeka R Hegde]

On 11-Feb-2016 09:55 PM, 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.

(I suddenly see the subject changed to gnu-gabi from linux-abi. If I 
missed any e-mail in the transition, my apologies.)

Why should it re-describe or repeat what already exists in LSB. For 
instance, the Exception Handling Framework? 
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/ehframechpt.html

I understand that the forum (an exclusive gABI discussion group) is not 
there in LSB. That matches with what you have created. But the resulting 
standards document is already there in LSB.

Am I missing anything very obvious?

On 11-Feb-2016 10:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I think that none of the ABI extensions in question are anything to do
> with Linux, the kernel.  Rather, they are ABI extensions for userspace in
> the GNU system, which apply the same under multiple kernels (but some of
> them may well not apply to Android systems using the Linux kernel, for
> example, if the Bionic C library and dynamic linker lack the relevant
> features).  Thus it would be more appropriate for a mailing list to be
> hosted on sourceware or Savannah, and for any resulting documents to refer
> to GNU, not to Linux.

These points look very logical. Even I would like to agree to it, but 
after clearing some of the conflicting points I have.

1. The LinuxFoundation.Org and hence the "Linux" Standard Base has been 
created for "Linux, the platform" and not "Linux, the kernel". Am I 
right? If I am right, why not make ourse;ves part of the foundation and 
hence standards? Its one big central place.

2. As I know, and also as H.J. mentioned, some of the extensions may 
involve the kernel eventually. Those may not be immediately under 
discussion in this thread. Even I have a couple of things (regarding 
non-volatile memory or special memory area) and it may involves kernel. 
But these may not be yet mature for a wider-audience discussion. But 
targeted for "Linux, the platform".

On 11-Feb-2016 11:50 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem
> to make it hard to subscribe and don't have easy to access archives.
> Having a local gnu-gabi group on sourceware.org would be better IMHO.

The x32, x86-64, IA-64, IA-32, SYS-V gABI, are all on google groups. Am 
I right? If I am right, then this Linux-ABI also looks good uder google 
groups I think. But this can be anything. Not of a major concern I believe.

Based on my understanding, to summarize: Discussions or groups can be 
anywhere. But the resulting standards/documents should be part of LSB. 
Is there any conflict?

--
Supra