Re: LSB1.1: /proc/cpuinfo
>From: Michael Stone <email@example.com>
>On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:34:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> BTW: sorry for being off topic but does anybody know how to write a test that
>> finds that GNU rm is not UNIX-98 compliant?
>> From http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/rm.html:
>> 4.If the current file is a directory, rm will perform actions equivalent to the
>> XSH specification rmdir() function called with a pathname of the current file
>> used as the path argument.
>> ... but GNU rm has a -d option that makes it behave like the unlink command.
>If you use an out-of-standard option, why would you expect a
My question was:
"How could a standard compliance test find out that GNU rm includes a nonstandard
option that gives GNU rm properties that are not allowed from SUSv2?"
The problem ius that such incompatibilities cannot be found by starting a
compliance test and waiting for the results. You have to read the standard,
memorize it, read the man pages of the programs to test and then check whether
the untestable behavior would be alloed to exists by the standard.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix