[lsb-discuss] xfs fileystem fails tests passed by ext3 and reiserfs?

Andrew Josey ajosey at rdg.opengroup.org
Thu Mar 6 23:59:59 PST 2008

POSIX requires conforming systems provide "an environment" where
applications can work, that does not mean all environments (filesystems)
are required to strictly conform, or even that the system be conforming
out of the box (the conformance document would state how to configure a
conforming system). 

So its fair behaviour for a system to have filesystems that do not
conform, also to have mount options etc administrators can select if
they require certain behaviour. NFS is a classic example of where many
features can be switched on or off based on the mount options. Systems
typically mount usb filesystems etc

Now if you are running tests for POSIX conformance which you are, then
its fair that the test suites flag the deviations, that is what they are
designed for. If LSB wants to deviate then it can do so, so long as the
original modes of the tests remain intact as per the license grant
(practically handled through the LSB_TEST=Y config variable).


On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 22:23 -0800, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> We have to do some work on the topic of file timestamps, and I'm
> interested in hearing comments in general on this.  The "absolutism"
> of
> the POSIX specification, which we inherit by reference, and which the
> tests expect, does not seem to match the current world of Linux any
> longer. In particular, Linux-on-laptops doesn't want to be updating
> things so often, it's bad for battery life and storage media life,
> neither of which have been prominent considerations in the development
> of POSIX. I don't believe we have an LSB position on this, except the
> general "things that Linux systems are doing as a matter of course
> shouldn't just out-of-hand be considered wrong for being a little
> different than POSIX".  POSIX is a very useful baseline for us, it has
> better quality interface documentation than we can point at anywhere
> else, but it's not god either, and our job is to describe common
> implementation practice. 

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list