1 |
On 09/27/2014 07:39 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/27/14 18:46, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc |
5 |
>>> back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding |
6 |
>>> adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>> The call for agenda goes out on Tuesday, so if somebody wants a vote |
9 |
>> please put it up. Don't let mgorny be the only one with agenda items. |
10 |
>> :) |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> -- |
13 |
>> Rich |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> He isn't ... remember GLEP 64 :) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really! We |
18 |
> have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3? If this |
19 |
> does go to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we bounce |
20 |
> the decision back to the releng team? We should not micro manage to |
21 |
> this level. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
May I suggest an alternative? We could implement sys-virtual/posix and |
25 |
make it depend on all packages that are not necessary for @system, but |
26 |
are necessary for proper POSIX compliance. Then we can tell users who |
27 |
need/want an environment containing all tools specified by POSIX, such |
28 |
as those not using sys-kernel/*-sources, to `emerge virtual/posix`. |
29 |
|
30 |
That said, the larger matter of standards conformance that needs to be |
31 |
considered. Illumos' Garrett D'amore has been working on standards |
32 |
conformance tests for libc: |
33 |
|
34 |
https://bitbucket.org/gdamore/illumos-gate/src/8815a50c9cc3f6f213931e12f72c252504363a82/usr/src/test/libc-tests/?at=core |
35 |
|
36 |
Garrett told me yesterday that the changes necessary to run them on |
37 |
Linux should be very small and are likely restricted to a few dozen |
38 |
lines in 1 file. I want to try running them to catch POSIX conformance |
39 |
issues in our base system. That will likely come later this year, as I |
40 |
recently became aware of a SUS conformance issue in ZFS' implementation |
41 |
of mmap() where PROT_WRITE + MAP_PRIVATE on a readonly file fails. |
42 |
Fixing that will take priority over reviewing the standards conformance |
43 |
of libc (others can review libc before i do if they wish). |
44 |
|
45 |
I imagine that the tests will catch issues in our present conformance |
46 |
when they are run. Once we have the results, we will need to decide how |
47 |
proactive we intend to be about fixing them. We will definitely want to |
48 |
work with upstream libcs to get issues that tests identified fixed. |
49 |
However, there would be the question of whether we wish to fix them |
50 |
immediately or wait for the patches fixing them to be upstreamed. If the |
51 |
matter of adding bc to the base system for POSIX conformance goes to the |
52 |
Council, it might be worth thinking about how far we wish to go for |
53 |
standards conformance when further issues are identified. |