From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar  3 11:36:29 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar  3 11:36:51 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 88] 2.0 document set doesn't include X11 libs 
Message-ID: <E1AyZMD-0003Wy-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From kingdon@freestandards.org  2004-03-03 11:36 -------
The <a href="http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/" >spec page</a> has
modules for graphics and such.  The module picks up the LSB version
number. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar  3 11:54:54 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar  3 11:58:58 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 108] high-level descriptions 
Message-ID: <E1AyZe2-0003bH-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-spec@freestandards.org  |anderson@freestandards.org
          Component|gLSB                        |General Website bugs
            Product|Specification               |Website
            Version|1.9                         |unspecified


 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar  3 12:04:53 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar  3 12:06:39 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 103] Additional items for specification 
Message-ID: <E1AyZnh-0003jr-00@base1.freestandards.org>

kingdon@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar  3 12:06:33 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar  3 12:07:43 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 109] spec. duplication vs. divergence 
Message-ID: <E1AyZpJ-0003kL-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-spec@freestandards.org  |anderson@freestandards.org




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-03 12:06 -------
This description, and the one in the Scope section is out of date. 
Replace both of these with a description that is current.  
Also, figure out how to improve the sharing of the intro pages among the docs, 
while allowing for the truely unique paragraphs that do need to be there.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Tue Mar  9 00:14:50 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Tue Mar  9 00:15:13 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 47] pam_authenticate 6 
Message-ID: <E1B0ZZq-000320-00@base1.freestandards.org>

cyeoh@samba.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-test@freestandards.org  |lsb-spec@freestandards.org
          Component|misc                        |gLSB
            Product|Runtime Tests               |Specification
            Version|CVS snapshot                |1.3




------- Additional Comments From cyeoh@samba.org  2004-03-09 00:14 -------
Move to spec authority. Will we accept both results?
Current practice with pam_unix.so does not appear to conform to
specification (man page). Given the availability of PAM_USER_UNKNOWN it
appears to be a mistake, but do we have to give some time for distributions
to fix this up and so accept both for a while?

Note that although we don't specify module behaviour, we do specify
pam_authenticate behaviour and pam_unix would be the most commonly used pam module
for authentication. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Tue Mar  9 02:54:20 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Tue Mar  9 02:54:43 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 47] pam_authenticate 6 
Message-ID: <E1B0c4C-0003ZJ-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From taggart@fc.hp.com  2004-03-09 02:54 -------
The fact that the distros are different than the spec would be enough for this
part of the PAM spec to fail to meet the LSB acceptance criteria(at least the
spirit of "Best Practice"). It should be optional in the spec until consensus
among upstream and the distros is reached and then not required for cert until
the distros have had a reasonable amount of time to implement. Given the current
2.0 schedule, it's too late for implementation, but consensus might still have
time to happen. If so, then we might leave the appropriate tests in the 2.0 test
suite but immediately issue a waiver as a way of helping runtimes identify that
it needs to be fixed asap. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 01:46:39 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 01:46:42 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] New: Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single
	UNIX Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B0xUF-0007kr-00@base1.freestandards.org>


The Single UNIX Specification (POSIX.1-2001) has a number of places where
an ENXIO error condition is required, for example fopen,
fropen, creat, and open

[ENXIO]
    [CX] The named file is a character special or block special file,
    and the device associated with this special file does not exist.

These are tested for in the vsx-pcts tests (new tests recently
added) by creating a nonexistent device as follows:

# nonexist_device.setup - Author Andrew Josey, The Open Group
#
#This script needs to be run with privilege
 
# device numbers can be changed, they should be
# nonexistent devices
 
#these numbers used were chosen after consulting the
#LANANA devices document.
 
PWD=`pwd`
bname=`basename $PWD`
if [ $bname != "test_sets" ]
then
   printf "Error, executing in unexpected directory: - $PWD, expected under
test_sets tree\n"
   exit 1
fi
 
if [ ! -r nonexistc ]
then
        mknod nonexistc c 59 1
        mknod nonexistb b 58 1
else
        printf "The devices appear to exist\n"
        ls -l nonexistc nonexistb
fi
chown vsx0:vsxg0 nonexistc nonexistb
 
exit 0

However at the moment  ENODEV is being returned rather than ENXIO 
(on Red Hat Linux 9 and Mandrake)
Its possible that the device nodes in the script setup are incorrect.

However the glibc man page for open states:

       ENODEV pathname  refers  to  a device special file and no corresponding
              device exists.  (This is a Linux kernel bug - in this  situation
              ENXIO must be returned.)

So this looks like another issue to document in the specification for
differences between the LSB and POSIX.

70||"total tests in ANSI.os 1536"
10|0 /tset/ANSI.os/streamio/fopen_X/T.fopen_X 06:53:30|TC Start, scenario ref
200-0, ICs: {1}
15|0 3.6-lite 1|TCM Start
400|0 1 1 06:53:30|IC Start
200|0 1 06:53:30|TP Start
520|0 1 00029493 1 1|fopen(/home/tet/test_sets/nonexistc, "r") did not return
expected errno
520|0 1 00029493 1 2|expected errno ENXIO, received 19(ENODEV)
220|0 1 1 06:53:30|FAIL
410|0 1 1 06:53:30|IC End
80|0 0 06:53:31|TC End, scenario ref 200-0
10|1 /tset/ANSI.os/streamio/freopen_X/T.freopen_X 06:53:31|TC Start, scenario
ref 204-0, ICs: {1}
15|1 3.6-lite 1|TCM Start
400|1 1 1 06:53:31|IC Start
200|1 1 06:53:31|TP Start
520|1 1 00029495 1 1|freopen(/home/tet/test_sets/nonexistc, "r") did not return
expected errno
520|1 1 00029495 1 2|expected errno ENXIO, received 19(ENODEV)
220|1 1 1 06:53:31|FAIL
410|1 1 1 06:53:31|IC End
80|1 0 06:53:32|TC End, scenario ref 204-0

70||"total tests in POSIX.os 1667"
10|7 /tset/POSIX.os/files/creat_X/T.creat_X 06:53:37|TC Start, scenario ref
428-0, ICs: {1}
15|7 3.6-lite 1|TCM Start
400|7 1 1 06:53:37|IC Start
200|7 1 06:53:37|TP Start
520|7 1 00029509 1 1|creat("/home/tet/test_sets/nonexistc", 0777) did not give
correct results
520|7 1 00029509 1 2|ERRNO VALUES: expected: 6 (ENXIO), observed: 19 (ENODEV)
220|7 1 1 06:53:37|FAIL
410|7 1 1 06:53:37|IC End
80|7 0 06:53:38|TC End, scenario ref 428-0
10|8 /tset/POSIX.os/files/open_X/T.open_X 06:53:38|TC Start, scenario ref 436-0,
ICs: {2}
15|8 3.6-lite 1|TCM Start
400|8 2 1 06:53:38|IC Start
200|8 2 06:53:38|TP Start
520|8 2 00029511 1 1|open("/home/tet/test_sets/nonexistc", O_RDONLY) did not
give correct results
520|8 2 00029511 1 2|ERRNO VALUES: expected: 6 (ENXIO), observed: 19 (ENODEV)
220|8 2 1 06:53:38|FAIL
410|8 2 1 06:53:38|IC End
80|8 0 06:53:39|TC End, scenario ref 436-0
900|06:53:39|TCC End 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 09:54:13 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 09:54:15 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B1565-0000vo-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-10 09:54 -------
In case I miss the call where this is discussed, I'd like to point out 
that the LSB does not specify the behavior of the kernel. What it returns 
doesn't mattere directly. 
 
What we do specify, is the behavior of the interface in libc.so.6. The 
library implementation should have the opportunity to correct a return code 
like this, if it chooses to do so. 
 
This opens up the new form of this questions "Should Glibc be fixing this 
return value for LSB conforming applications?". 
 
 
  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 11:07:16 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 11:07:19 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B16Em-0001BG-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From mats@freestandards.org  2004-03-10 11:07 -------
Didn't we recently have a case where glibc removed a workaround they'd 
previously had in place for questionable kernel behavior (tcgetattr)?  So this 
seems unlikely to happen at least for upstream. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From tobias.burnus at physik.fu-berlin.de  Wed Mar 10 11:32:09 2004
From: tobias.burnus at physik.fu-berlin.de (Tobias Burnus)
Date: Wed Mar 10 11:32:30 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single
	UNIX	Spec requires ENXIO
In-Reply-To: <E1B16Em-0001BG-00@base1.freestandards.org>
References: <E1B16Em-0001BG-00@base1.freestandards.org>
Message-ID: <404F4309.3060408@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Hello,

>------- Additional Comments From mats@freestandards.org  2004-03-10 11:07 -------
>Didn't we recently have a case where glibc removed a workaround they'd 
>previously had in place for questionable kernel behavior (tcgetattr)?  So this 
>seems unlikely to happen at least for upstream. 
>  
>
Wouldn't it be the easiest to fix this in the upstream Linux kernel? 
Since the distributions  already patch the kernel heavily and do patch 
other programs for LSB complience,  one extra patch shouldn't cause too 
much trouble, should it?

Tobias

>--  
>Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
>------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
>
>_______________________________________________
>lsb-spec mailing list
>lsb-spec@freestandards.org
>http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-spec
>
>  
>


From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 12:26:08 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 12:26:10 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B17T5-0001ZD-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From kingdon@freestandards.org  2004-03-10 12:26 -------
I don't think it would be good for libc to try to change ENODEV to ENXIO.
ENODEV gets used for a lot of things and libc wouldn't have a chance of
correctly second-guessing when ENXIO fits instead.
 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 12:29:35 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 12:29:38 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B17WR-0001aV-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From mats@freestandards.org  2004-03-10 12:29 -------
>From Alan Cox: I think actually its one of those "Send Linus a large patch and 
the spec explanation when 2.7 starts" kind of bugs. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 15:52:43 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 15:52:45 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B1Ah1-0002Zp-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From rddunlap@osdl.org  2004-03-10 15:52 -------
I don't see an actual kernel version used for testing.
Can we see that, please?
RH 9 and MDK ver. N are probably 2.4.x by default, but
let's not guess about what was used for testing.
 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 10 16:30:46 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 16:30:49 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B1BHq-0002k6-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From sbenedict@mandrakesoft.com  2004-03-10 16:30 -------
Mandrake 10.0 Community test was using kernel 2.4.25-2mdk. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Thu Mar 11 01:26:56 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Thu Mar 11 01:26:58 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B1Jei-0004nN-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From ajosey@opengroup.org  2004-03-11 01:26 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't see an actual kernel version used for testing.
> Can we see that, please?
> RH 9 and MDK ver. N are probably 2.4.x by default, but
> let's not guess about what was used for testing.
> 

For RH 9 currently using 2.4.20-9 

(btw can we get bugzilla to obfuscate the email addresses rather than
leaving clear mailto URLs for harvesting) 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 17 10:41:39 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 17 10:41:42 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 110] spec presentation/formatting (html version) 
Message-ID: <E1B3dAp-0005kj-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From kingdon@freestandards.org  2004-03-17 10:41 -------
I don't think current browsers really have the ability to handle this well (e.g.
by using columns or not based on the screen width), and attempting to kludge it
up with HTML tricks generally causes other problems (such as making the page not
work well in a narrow window, or others).  The workaround is clear: narrow the
width of you browser window.

It's also more an issue for the docbook tools we are using, than for the spec.

If anyone who knows more than I about the process of building the spec wants to
comment, please do, but my suggestion would be WONTFIX.
 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 17 10:51:35 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 17 10:51:37 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 119]  New: NGROUPS_MAX of 32 vs 64Ki 
Message-ID: <E1B3dKR-0005mJ-00@base1.freestandards.org>


The LSB specifies NGROUPS_MAX as 32 in the Data Definitions section.  Recent
linuces (both in libc and the kernel) have raised this to 65535 (plus or minus
one or two, I forget the exact value).

The big question for the spec is whether this constant is really part of the
ABI?    The SUS has suitable language about how applications cannot rely on the
compiled in value and how sysconf might give a better value.  So for those kinds
of uses it doesn't seem necessary to have the LSB specify a value.  The
remaining question is whether ABI's contain things like arrays sized by
NGROUPS_MAX (in the interfaces).  The LSB doesn't, and although it isn't
precisely our problem we won't really think other ABI interfaces are likely to
either.  So we should remove "NGROUPS_MAX 32" from the data definitions section
of the spec. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 17 11:51:15 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 17 11:51:18 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 110] spec presentation/formatting (html version) 
Message-ID: <E1B3eGB-00065r-00@base1.freestandards.org>

kingdon@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX




------- Additional Comments From kingdon@freestandards.org  2004-03-17 11:51 -------
Also worried about anything which would negatively affect accessibility.
Consensus of meeting is WONTFIX.
 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk  Wed Mar 17 14:59:45 2004
From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Wed Mar 17 15:03:30 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 119]  New: NGROUPS_MAX of 32 vs 64Ki
In-Reply-To: <E1B3dKR-0005mJ-00@base1.freestandards.org>
References: <E1B3dKR-0005mJ-00@base1.freestandards.org>
Message-ID: <1079553584.18765.13.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk>

On Mer, 2004-03-17 at 15:51, bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org wrote:
> of uses it doesn't seem necessary to have the LSB specify a value.  The
> remaining question is whether ABI's contain things like arrays sized by
> NGROUPS_MAX (in the interfaces).  The LSB doesn't, and although it isn't
> precisely our problem we won't really think other ABI interfaces are likely to
> either.  So we should remove "NGROUPS_MAX 32" from the data definitions section
> of the spec. 

Suggest moving it elsewhere any saying "NGROUPS_MAX shall be 32 or
higher". That ensures back compatibility constraints are met


From gk4 at austin.ibm.com  Thu Mar 18 09:22:56 2004
From: gk4 at austin.ibm.com (George Kraft)
Date: Thu Mar 18 09:23:35 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] LSB man pages
Message-ID: <1079619776.4924.21.camel@gk4.austin.ibm.com>

Did we ever write LSB man pages for: lsb_release, lsblibchk, lsbappchk,
lsbdevchk, lsbpkgchk?  Are they included in the LSB packages?

http://www.schweikhardt.net/Man-Page.html

George (gk4)



From cyeoh at samba.org  Thu Mar 18 18:33:45 2004
From: cyeoh at samba.org (Christopher Yeoh)
Date: Thu Mar 18 18:35:44 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] LSB man pages
In-Reply-To: <1079619776.4924.21.camel@gk4.austin.ibm.com>
References: <1079619776.4924.21.camel@gk4.austin.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <16474.12761.510170.779048@gargle.gargle.HOWL>

At 2004/3/18 08:22-0600  George Kraft writes:
> Did we ever write LSB man pages for: lsb_release, lsblibchk, lsbappchk,
> lsbdevchk, lsbpkgchk?  Are they included in the LSB packages?
> 
> http://www.schweikhardt.net/Man-Page.html

We have man pages for lsbappchk, lsblibchk, lsbpkgchk and lsb_release.
Most (if not all - I haven't checked) are shipped with the lsb package.

Regards,

Chris
-- 
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Fri Mar 19 03:48:12 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Fri Mar 19 03:48:15 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 51] Return value of wcpncpy is different from
	glibc-2.3.3 
Message-ID: <E1B4Ffo-0006lh-00@base1.freestandards.org>

mchinen@yamato.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |major




------- Additional Comments From mchinen@yamato.ibm.com  2004-03-19 03:48 -------
Can I get the current status about this issue?
This difference become a problem of lsb-runtime-test-2.0. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com  Fri Mar 19 09:50:40 2004
From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D)
Date: Fri Mar 19 09:51:46 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] LSB man pages
Message-ID: <A06801158AE07847B27A52C1A074BC1D04C90DA9@fmsmsx404.fm.intel.com>


> At 2004/3/18 08:22-0600  George Kraft writes:
> > Did we ever write LSB man pages for: lsb_release, 
> lsblibchk, lsbappchk,
> > lsbdevchk, lsbpkgchk?  Are they included in the LSB packages?
> > 
> > http://www.schweikhardt.net/Man-Page.html
> 
> We have man pages for lsbappchk, lsblibchk, lsbpkgchk and lsb_release.
> Most (if not all - I haven't checked) are shipped with the 
> lsb package.

lsbpkgchk and lsbdevchk are not "released products" at this
time (1.3), although we've been hoping to release at least pkgchk
for LSB 2.0.  It's not getting a lot of attention, though.


From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Mon Mar 22 18:48:42 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Mon Mar 22 18:48:45 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B5Z9u-0005GR-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From cyeoh@samba.org  2004-03-22 18:48 -------
A patch to fix this problem was recently put in just after 2.6.5-rc2. I guess
the spec authority just needs to decide whether to accept the old behaviour as
well for an interim period. Is anyone actually shipping a 2.6 kernel yet? 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 12:12:41 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:12:44 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 119] NGROUPS_MAX of 32 vs 64Ki 
Message-ID: <E1B6Bvl-0005aL-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 12:12 -------
Changed to SrcOnly and left at 32. NGROUPS_MAX is no longer in the spec. 
Applications should be using sysconf() to obtain this value anyway.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 12:18:47 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:18:50 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B6C1f-0005bt-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 12:18 -------
Consesnus on the spec auth call is that the spec should state that either 
value may be returned, and the tests shoul dbe adjusted accordingly. Reassign 
to test group after spec is updated.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 12:29:04 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:29:06 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 96] iopl & ioperm can't be used now 
Message-ID: <E1B6CBc-0005dL-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 12:29 -------
Spec Auth feels these should be removed. Because nobody is really using these 
interfaces, we think it would be OK to remove them, instead of deprecating 
them. Deprecating them still leave the conflit with the prohibition agains 
requiring elevated priviliges.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 12:40:49 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:40:52 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 98] chown xxx.yyy vs coreutils-5.2.0 
Message-ID: <E1B6CMz-0005fv-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 12:40 -------
The normal rules require that we deprecate something for one release. 
 
How big of a pain is it to cause chown to accept the old syntax without having 
to set _POSIX2_VERSION?  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 12:46:20 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 12:46:23 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 73] FHS exemption for applications in Chapter 9 of
	gLSB 
Message-ID: <E1B6CSK-0005hH-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-spec@freestandards.org  |anderson@freestandards.org




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 12:46 -------
Spec auth agrees we should tighten up the spec to require FHS now.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 13:03:41 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 13:03:44 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 47] pam_authenticate 6 
Message-ID: <E1B6Cj7-0005mK-00@base1.freestandards.org>

anderson@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|gLSB                        |lsb-runtime-tests
            Product|Specification               |Runtime Tests
            Version|1.3                         |2.0




------- Additional Comments From anderson@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 13:03 -------
Spec auth feels that Spec and Tests should use the intended value. Spec Auth 
will grant waivers through Q3 of 2004 for this issue.  
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 16:04:28 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:04:31 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 76] LANANA reference to specification is incorrect.
Message-ID: <E1B6FY4-0006HG-00@base1.freestandards.org>

mats@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From mats@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 16:04 -------
Can someone check if this was taken care of? 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 16:08:07 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:08:08 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 107] meaning of "ELF" 
Message-ID: <E1B6Fbb-0006IK-00@base1.freestandards.org>

mats@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-spec@freestandards.org  |anderson@freestandards.org


 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 16:09:14 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:09:16 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B6Fcg-0006It-00@base1.freestandards.org>

mats@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 16:09:52 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:09:56 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 115] Linux kernel returns ENODEV when Single UNIX
	Spec requires ENXIO 
Message-ID: <E1B6FdI-0006JD-00@base1.freestandards.org>

mats@freestandards.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|lsb-spec@freestandards.org  |anderson@freestandards.org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW




------- Additional Comments From mats@freestandards.org  2004-03-24 16:09 -------
Assigned to anderson for spec update. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 16:29:00 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 16:29:03 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 76] LANANA reference to specification is incorrect.
Message-ID: <E1B6Fvo-0006Ms-00@base1.freestandards.org>




------- Additional Comments From dbb@linkexplorer.com  2004-03-24 16:29 -------
As of 24 March 2004 this problem still exists. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

From bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org  Wed Mar 24 18:52:36 2004
From: bugzilla-daemon at freestandards.org (bugzilla-daemon@freestandards.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 18:52:39 2004
Subject: [lsb-spec] [Bug 137] New: Infinity related header data is missing
	from math.h 
Message-ID: <E1B6IAm-0006rQ-00@base1.freestandards.org>


Running some regression tests on PostgreSQL showed failures on timestamps which
appear to be caused because of lack of proper definitions of INFINITY along with
some float definitions and others from math.h such as IEEE 754/IEEE 854 items.
Mats and Marvin may have more background on this.
This problem should be noted against both 1.3 and 2.0 specifications. 
 
--  
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.