Re: Comments on LSB.fhs and LSB.usergroups FIPs and Failures
Hi Matt,
Matt Wilson writes:
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 31 Failed
> - bad standard. util-linux chfn uses -o for the office number
> Looks like someone wrote the standard from shadowutils or something.
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 32 Failed
> - util-linux chfn uses -p for the office phone
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 41 Failed
> - our passwd doesn't do expiration management. shadow-utils 'change'
> or 'usermod' utility should be used for that.
At the NY meeting in January/Feb there was agreement to use the
shadowutils package as the reference for these commands so the
specifications were based on that.
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 42 Failed
> - ditto
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 43
> - ditto
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 44 Failed
> - ditto
>
> /tset/LSB.usersgroups/commands/misc/T.misc 67 Unresolved
> - the test is trying to add a test user 'vsx21' using usermod -f? Or
> the pretest setup wasn't able to add the user?
The rest of these problems appear to be related to the useradd group
additions that were discussed on lsb-discuss a couple of weeks
ago. There is more information about why the test failed here:
http://www.freestandards.org/lsb/test/results/index.php?testcaseid=71
For consistency's sake I think we should consider that for
implementations where useradd by default adds a group for each user on
user creation whether userdel should also delete the group on deletion
of that user. Also whether useradd should fail if the associated group
it tries to create already exists even if the user doesn't.
Quite a few other testcases have also been analysed and have been
stored in the database at http://www.freestandards.org/lsb/test/results.
Regards,
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
Reply to: