[lsb-discuss] Inconsistency between glibc and POSIX fixed

[Nick Stoughton]

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.

-- 
Nick