[lsb-discuss] Inconsistency between glibc and POSIX fixed

Nick Stoughton nick at msbit.com
Wed Jun 21 12:15:19 PDT 2006

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:57 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:03:47AM -0700, Nick Stoughton wrote:
> > On the other hand, this is a clear, simple, bug-fix, supported by the
> > upstream maintainer. I would be surprised if distro-vendors were unable
> > to patch their current glibc to handle this. I'd like to see this going
> > into 3.2 ... I don't want to preserve differences to POSIX artificially.
> > Its also fairly clear that few apps have been affected by this ... it
> > took a test suite to find it, and not an ISV asking why her app core
> > dumped. 
> Suppose 3.2 allowed both the correct POSIX behavior as well as the 3.x
> legacy behaviour; or suppose we issue waivers so that a distro with
> the bugfix will be able to get LSB 3.2 certification even though 3.2
> doesn't allow it --- what's the hit to application portability?  Will
> applications expecting the old 3.1 behavior misbehave horribly if we
> change or allow the change in the LSB 3.x series?  How many
> applications are there that may be affected by this?
Actually, in 3.1 we require the POSIX behavior. But glibc doesn't
provide it. So, we should be issuing waivers for 3.1, but refusing to do
so for 3.2.


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list