Re: real LSB compliance
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:51:46PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So, if we can stop talking about the tired RPM issue for a minute, I was
> wonering: How close is stable and/or testing to compliance with the LSB?
> Has anyone got a handle on that yet?
>
> I downloaded lsbdev from their web site. This is mostly used to build
> .lsb packages (someone should probably package it), but it has a
> lsblibchk program that does a check of the system's libs. It doesn't
> much like unstable[1]. It's also not a thorough check, I'm sure, just
> libs.
I'd do it, but I can't seem to find a source code bundle. There are, as you
probably noticed, aliened .debs in the FTP area.
> Checking symbols in /lib/libc.so.6
> fgetpos64 has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.1
> fgetwc has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> fgetwc_unlocked has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> getrlimit64 has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.1
> getwc has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> msgctl has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.0
> posix_memalign has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> shmctl has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.0
> vfwscanf has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
Since glibc 2.2 is backward-compatible with 2.0 and 2.1, what is the point of
these checks? Looks like I have some documentation to read to find out what
this tool is trying to accomplish.
--
- mdz
Reply to: