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):
1
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
to be supplied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation response
------------------------
Rationale
-------------
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
http://www.pasc.org/interps/
for an example of some guidelines. I expect LSB would need
some mods to this
regards
Andrew
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
that
> > > 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: