[Fwd: Re: [cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB

Subhabrata Biswas subhabrata.biswas at wipro.com
Mon Feb 17 05:23:46 PST 2003


> 
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> 
> From: Craig Thomas <craiger at osdl.org>
> To: Subhabrata Biswas <subhabrata.biswas at wipro.com>
> Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Reposting my query about CGL-LSB compliance
> Date: 14 Feb 2003 09:44:08 -0800
> 
> As for LSB certification, you are correct that the work group does rely
> on either an LSB certification brand or as mentioned by Jeremy, making
> sure the LSB tests pass via a self-validation.  I personally feel that
> it is a good idea if you as an individual would like to run the LSB
> tests on certain distributions that have CGL features, to assure that
> no LSB regressions occur.  As far as I understand the LSB and its tests,
> the test suite is free to download and run by anybody (open).  However,
> only the LSB has the authority to _certify_ a distribution.  Therefore,
> you should be able to freely run the tests.

Based on your suggestion that I can try running the LSB test
suite to verify LSB regressions, is there a place/group where
these results can be shared? I am not looking at a formal
announcemnt/proclamation by us of a particular CGL-patched linux
having passed or failed LSB test suite validation.
I was wondering if there's a discussion group where these self-
run test results of ours can be shared to get suggestion and views
from the open source community.

Ofcourse Rusty has already pointed to the LKML, the concerned
CGL/kernel patch maintainer and this discussion list as some of
the 'Interested Parties' for the LSB compliance test of CGL patches,
specially if non-conformity (which in non-diplomatic terms is called 
 bug) is detected. What happens for result which I feel would be good
to cross-check and share with the community?

> 
> One of the best ways to contribute to the CGL effort is to mimic what is
> being done for the POSIX Interface compliant requirements (1.2.1 through
> 1.2.4).  Here, a sourceforge project was created called the Open POSIX
> Test Suite.  Contributors are adding POSIX test cases to validate
> compliance.  It is hoped that in the future, the LSB will utilize these
> test cases and incorporate them into their certification test.
> 
> That said, there has been some recent discussion to provide a similar
> project for IPv6 validation tests.  Investigations are underway to
> determine the best method to deploy a test suite (heavily leveraging 
> the Tahi project).  The goal again is to hope that these tests
> eventually make it into the LSB suite in the future. 
> 
> If you or your group is interested in contributing to CGL activities,
> this would be the place to add the greatest benefit to CGL.
> 
Thanks for this information. Me along with my group will be more than
interested to contribute to this activity. I am trying to gather more
info. on this from the CGL discussion list archives, but would appreciate
pointers/indicators about where information on this is available. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but as I understand no project/activity has yet started
for developing these IPv6 validation test suites.
> 
> So far, there should be no need for a CGL feature addition to change the
> behavior of a core system call.  Therefore, any CGL additions should not
> affect the LSB compliance.  However, in the event that an LSB regression
> occurs, it should be up to the distribution first to assure that the
> patches include were corrected.  If the investigation of a regression
> leads directly to a CGL feature, then the I would assume that the CGL 
> technical board will be involved in making some sort of decision
> regarding the potential conflict between the LSB spec requirement and
> the suspected CGL requirement causing the LSB regression.
> 
Thanks for sharing what would be CGL's stand on these kind of conflict
scenarios. I really appreciate it.

Regards,
Subhabrata.
--
subhabrata.biswas at wipro.com



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list