LSB specifications that are not ISO stds should not imply they are

[reply] [-] Description Mats Wichmann 2013-10-10 15:36:36 UTC
All LSB releases (Core specification) after LSB 3.1, which was submitted as ISO
23360, continue to indicate that they are part of the ISO standard. Since
these editions have not been submitted to ISO, this is rather questionable.
There's been considerable evolution - LSB Core now contains the nss security
libraries and, as of 5.0, C++, neither of which were part of the ISO
submission.

Here are some examples, first from Generic:

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/scope.html

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/requirements.html

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/implementation.html

And then from an architecture supplement (IA32 in this case):

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-IA32/LSB-Core-IA32/modscope.html

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-IA32/LSB-Core-IA32/tocobjformat.html

I know at the time the ISO submission was prepared, it was desired to keep the
two as close as possible, essentially just switching out the copyright holder
and document license, but at this point it's become deceptive to list things
this way.