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

Re: [PROPOSAL]drop LSB.usersgroups/commands/passwd/T.passwd 2

The current status is that the test is testing the specification,
this is always the touchstone guideline for test development.
Once we deviate from that, the program has little or no value.

To get this changed there needs to be a process put in place
that can rule on this perceived problem with the specification
I would suggest that the LSB establish an interpretations process,
and use a defect form such as the following

 						LSB Interpretation reference
								1.0  #nnn


	Interpretation Number:	nnn
	Topic:			passwd
	Relevant Sections:	X.Y

LSB Interpretation Request:

	From: __________
	Date: __________


 7  Defect Report concerning (number and title of specification
     if applicable):

Linux Standard Base, Generic Specification Version 1.0


 8  Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):


Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3


 9  References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table

to be supplied


10  Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived


11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):


Interpretation response
Forwarded to Interpretations Group:

I would be happy to chair the interpretations group, and assume
that the lsb-spec mailing list would be the main forum. There would
need to be a set of guidelines regarding what can be said
in an interpretation, look at
for an example of some guidelines. I expect LSB would need
some mods to this

On Sep 18,  8:10pm in "Re: [PROPOSAL]drop L", Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > John H Terpstra writes:
> > >
> > > Group passwords are in the current specification. If by democratic means
> > > we reach a decision that this should not be supported then we must follow
> > > due process and procedure to render this feature obsolete. A standard
> > > lacks due process will not gain popular assent.
> > >
> >
> > I agree we need a well documented process for making changes like
> > this, especially since its removing a feature. Is there a suitable
> > procedure we can borrow from another standards group?
> What is the current status with this ? I ask because I run the
> LSB-Usersgroups test some minutes ago and found that the T.passwd 2
> and T.passwd 3 tests are broken. For me the test don't do what they
> should do, so both always fails.
>   Thorsten
> --
> Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
> SuSE GmbH            Deutschherrenstr. 15-19       D-90429 Nuernberg
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>-- End of excerpt from Thorsten Kukuk

Andrew Josey
The Open Group

Reply to: