[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-06-25

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Wed Jun 25 12:39:21 PDT 2008


Attendees: Jeff, Stew, Darren, Robert, Marvin, Ron, Mats, Vojtech (?), 
George, Alexey, Kay

Jeff: there's a new task status table at the top of ProjectPlan40.  If 
anyone has information to add or sees anything missing, please add it or 
let me know.

Robert: maybe talk a little more about __ symbols.  Could we ignore the 
__ things in appchk, instead of reporting error, but still not add to 
LSB?  Jeff: what happens if someone drops the interface?  Compatibility 
guarantee.  Robert: as a developer, what do I do with __ errors?  Jeff: 
fix some in LSB 4, better docs for those we don't include.

program_invocation_name.  Jeff: objections?  Mats: something to do, not 
sure what.  Jeff: should we lean towards inclusion?  Mats: yes.

getgrent_r and friends.  Mats: the ones without "f" are done.  "f" ones 
mean "work on FILE *".  Not really controversial, just not in POSIX. 
Jeff: probably not, except the usual "we have to write the man pages". 
Robert: found some man pages online for the f* functions.  Mats: will 
think about it.  May be an issue with specifying some things that we 
don't already.

argz_*.  Jeff: functions to work with Pascal-style strings.  Seems 
useful.  No apps seem to use them, though.  Alexey: argz_append has 
apps: ImageMagick and gphoto2.  Mats: thinks he's build an ImageMagick 
in LSB mode.  Probably caught by configure scripts for open-source apps. 
  Robert: maybe leave out until we hear a request.  Jeff: not 
necessarily reject, just downgrade the priority.

[Correction, found after the call: argz_* don't do Pascal strings, but 
rather C string arrays, with null bytes separating each string, along 
with a length.]

sysinfo, get_nprocs*.  Mats: two issues.  The get_nprocs stuff can be 
gotten another way; perhaps just put a pointer to the other way in the 
database.  Jeff: little usage in navigator, note already present. 
Robert: sysinfo looks like stuff Ted is nervous about exposing.  Jeff: 
good number of apps that use it, sounds like useful and fairly 
well-understood info, maybe we should add it.  Robert: Ted would be the 
best person to ask.  Agrees that the info is useful.  Will it change 
again?  Jeff: no idea, but the change made before looks scalable.

mempcpy, wmempcpy.  Jeff: __ version is in.  Robert: did we miss 
something?  Jeff: 8 apps in navigator, looks like a convenience 
function, can do pointer arithmetic to do the same thing.  Kay: back to 
"how many code changes do we request of people?"  Jeff: maybe we want to 
figure out why the __ version is in.  Ron: there was a bug for 
__mempcpy, will look for it.

Jeff: on vacation for next two calls.  Mats will lead unless someone 
(Ted?) has a burning desire to.




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list