x86_64 psABI doc

Andrew Haley wrote:

>> We can't remove old versions - they're there specifically
>> because past published LSB specifications reference specific
>> versions and those must remain available so those links
>> remain valid. This is in fact the exact reason why they are
>> mirrored on refspecs, because we can't change history, but
>> upstream sites are likely to drop specific versions (my own
>> employer does this with great impunity). I believe the
>> published ISO LSB specification, AMD64 volume, contains this link.
>
> Interesting. The trouble with this approach, while it makes
> some sense from an historical point of view, is that people
> might refer to this out of date ABI spec and actually use it.

As a separate topic from updating our current reference,
we ought to think of some way to describe the copies in
refspecs in a way that indicates that they may not be the
current versions; there's already something like that in the
LSB specification itself but one could easily browse directly
in refspecs to one of the saved specs without seeing that notice.

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> Jeff Licquia wrote:
>>> Michael Matz wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The x86_64 ABI is here:
>>>>> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.95.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately it's an old copy. Can one of you please mail
>>>>> someone at the site and get this pulled?
>>>> Let's see if webmaster is an account that is read.
>>> Forwarding to lsb-discuss. Is there a newer version we should be
>>> using here?
>>
>> We can't remove old versions - they're there specifically
>> because past published LSB specifications reference specific
>> versions and those must remain available so those links
>> remain valid. This is in fact the exact reason why they are
>> mirrored on refspecs, because we can't change history, but
>> upstream sites are likely to drop specific versions (my own
>> employer does this with great impunity). I believe the
>> published ISO LSB specification, AMD64 volume, contains this link.
>
> Interesting. The trouble with this approach, while it makes
> some sense from an historical point of view, is that people
> might refer to this out of date ABI spec and actually use it.
>
>> We can certainly entertain a requests that future LSB
>> specifications reference a newer version of the x86_64 ABI.
>
> This would seem sensible.

and while there's an audience, what's the current version
and the right link to pull it from? I'll generate a bugreport
to make this adjustment for LSB 4, which is in production.