[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian LSB Status



On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:37:10AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status?

Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2.
The outstanding issues are:

	* alien's permissions and ownership handling (the woody version
	  uses the cpio portion of the rpm exclusively, which is buggy;
	  the version in unstable fixes the known problems)

	* pax has a minor POSIX violation wrt the major/minor numbers in
	  non-device fields (also fixed in unstable)

	* our glibc has a number of POSIX compliance bugs; see Bug#156821

	* kernel 2.4.18 has a number of POSIX compliance bugs, fixed
	  in 2.4.19. There're 2.4.19 kernel-images in unstable, but the
	  bf2.4 version used for boot-floppies hasn't been updated; see
	  Bug#158026.

	* our glibc has the traditional Linux version of nice(), whose
	  behaviour doesn't comply with POSIX. A waiver's been requested,
	  see: http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0014

	* the LSB runtime tests have buggy implementations of the msync
	  and mprotect tests -- the former results in a false FAIL, the
	  latter in a false FAIL or a hang, depending on your circumstances.
	  Waivers have been granted for these, see:
	    http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0009
	    http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0010

The alien, pax, and kernel changes should be fine for a point revision
of woody, as should the glibc changes in Bug#156821, if accepted by
the maintainers. The nice() changes probably aren't acceptable for a
point revision (that's Joey's (Martin Schulze, stable release manager)
opinion and mine, anyway), but it seems plausible that a waiver can be
granted at least for the time being.

In the meantime, you should be able to make your system LSB 1.2
compliant by:

	(a) running woody
	(b) adding "deb http://people.debian.org/~ajt/lsb/ woody/lsb main"
	    to your sources.list, and installing libc6, and alien
	(c) running a 2.4.19 (or later) kernel
	(d) installing the "lsb" package

and you should be able to demonstrate your system's complaince by:

	(e) installing pax (from the woody/lsb site)
	(f) installing tcsh
	(g) downloading the lsb-runtime-tests package from
	      http://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/test_suites/released/binary/
	(h) installing the test suite with `alien -ic lsb-runtime-tests-*.rpm'
	(i) setting up a password for the new vsx0 user, logging in as the
	    vsx0 user (preferably at the console), and running ./run_tests
	    (accepting the default options)
	(g) kill -9'ing the T.mprotect processes when they hang the
	    test suite

Note the tests take many hours to run, and that they create users and put
include many setuid root binaries that are probably trivially exploitable,
and it's probably a good idea to reformat and reinstall after running it.
The testsuite isn't really meant for users to run over their own system.

Finally, if you find an LSB package you want to install in general, running

	(h) alien -i lsb-blah-*.rpm

on it. (The extra `-c' for the lsb-runtime-tests rpm is due to a bug in the
runtime-tests: it's missing the required dependency on "lsb")

Anyway, once there's a decision on the nice() issue, we'll be aiming to
get an official compliance statement done so as to obtain the available
bragging rights.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpGWuLGCFczC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: