From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-34643-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20871 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2004 18:57:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20861 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2004 18:57:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jul 2004 18:57:32 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6SIvWe1024813
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:57:32 -0400
Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6SIvUa20613;
	Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:57:31 -0400
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [obish/6.2] GNU/Linux usage
References: <40F934DE.30803@gnu.org> <20040717142435.GA28962@nevyn.them.org>
	<41054F41.9060900@gnu.org> <20040726185908.GA24643@nevyn.them.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:57:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20040726185908.GA24643@nevyn.them.org>
Message-ID: <vt2k6wodkqs.fsf@zenia.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:36:49PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 10:17:02AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > >>>-         Linux Standards Base says that programs that use 'long
> > >>>+         Linux[sic] Standards Base says that programs that use 'long
> > >>>          double' on PPC GNU/Linux are non-conformant.  */
> > >>>       set_gdbarch_long_double_bit (gdbarch, 8 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
> > >
> > >
> > >Er, is that really necessary?  It's a workgroup named "Linux Standards
> > >Base" and even has the trademark for "LSB".  I'd be annoyed if a [sic]
> > >appeared in the middle of my company name, for sure.
> > 
> > If we're going to have a mechanical audit process then something is 
> > needed.  Would you prefer:
> > 
> > 	[GNU/]Linux
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Or recognize "Linux Standards Base"?  At least it's conveniently all on
> one line.  I'd be just as annoyed if a [GNU/] appeared in the middle of
> my company name.

Yeah, I think recognizing Linux Standards Base is the way to go.  It's
a separate name from "Linux" (the kernel) and "GNU/Linux" (the
system).