Re: Bug#186140: Bug#206210: diff: does not comply with LSB 1.3 (fwd)
Michael Stone writes...
> >You are probably correct here, but, again, this is a start.
>
> A start is something you do at the beginning of the release cycle, not
> the end. I've spent a lot of time trying to make sure that coreutils is
> compliant with POSIX/SUS/LSB-spec (as has upstream) but this push to
> have the package be multibyte compliant also is just coming out of
> nowhere. (The bug was in for quite a while, at a low priority, without
> any particular comment that it was an important issue.) We're already
> past the Sep 1 date for major changes to fundamental packages. AJ--do
> you want to push that date back a couple of months? If the answer is
> yes then someone can have a reasonable chance at looking over the whole
> coreutils package for multibyte issues. (Basically, anything that uses a
> char must be looked at, right?) Even then I can't commit myself to a
> deadline because I have no way to test multibyte characters, so someone
> else would have to pick up the ball for this.
The LSB Workgroup is partially to blame for this as the changes were merged in
from the OpenI18N spec without reviewing the acceptance criteria,
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/index.html
I will push back and see if this can be removed as a requirement for 1.3
certification. I think we're still going to have to solve it by 2.0
though(releases in December)
However, since RedHat and SuSE have already added it I think some effort to
contact them and try and get everyone sync'd up on a solution that's
acceptable to upstream would be a good idea(regardless of what's happening in
unstable/testing).
I suspect you know their coreutils maintainers but if you need any help from
me to organize such a meeting, please let me know.
Thanks,
--
Matt Taggart
taggart@debian.org
Reply to: