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