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 <email@example.com> <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.''
Description: PGP signature