LSB General Forum

Hi, I am trying to evaluate the difference between LSB and POSIX specification. I need some info around that. I am basically looking for answers to two of my questions. 1. Is the LSB specified API set same as that of POSIX API set? 2. Can lsbcc detect and report an error, if I use any of non-POSIX APIs in my application? Thanks -Nitin

There's been some discussions on the weekly LSB call about how far we should go in terms using a very careful system of protecting the OpenPGP keys that we use for signing the packages that we release. Some have gone as far as to say that we should use a hardware solution, much like Red Hat has done for signing their packages. For more information about what they did, it's instructive to read Mark Cox's description of what he implemented, here: http://www.awe.com/mark/blog/200701300906.html What did he do, specifically?

Kay Tate, Jiri Dluhos, Ted Tso, Jesper Thomschultz, Alan Clark, Alexey Khoroshilov, Brian Proffitt, Russ Herrold, Robert Schweikert, George Kraft, Dalibor Topic. LSB 4.0 status. Jeff: olver core tests? Alexey: investigating the issues. If we see lots of failures, should be OK; there are a number of test cases that are only slightly different. Usually, we aggregate those into a single failure when they're related. If new things come up, they won't be aggregated, so may take some analysis.

*** NEW NUMBER STARTING JUNE 25 *** Conference Dial-in Number: (218) 936-7999 Participant Access Code: 546639 Note: If dialing long distance is a problem, please contact Lyn Moreno (info@linux-foundation.org), and the LF will arrange to reimburse you for the use of a calling card. Agenda: - LSB 4.0 beta progress.

Like with sane and dbus not making it into LSB 4.0. If both projects could be asked to provide LSB 4.0 packages as runtime replacements for those apis and the dynamic linker be setup to pick those packages up. This ended the head ache of having to have all distributions on the same page. We decide that we want dbus 1.0 so we have dbus 1.0 and so on. Where there distributions catch up applications using LSB just drop the need to install runtime replacements. Very much like windows applications are now.

After browsing the instructions on the website and downloading various packages I'm a bit confused on how I can get LSB 3.2 chroot build environment for myself.

Hi All,

I installed lsb-runtime-3.1.1.4 test suite on my x86 target board running montavista carrier grade linux.

Most of the LSB.pam tests like pam_getenvlist, pam_set_item, pam_end are failing.

Most of these giving "Uninitiated" and  "pam_start returned Critical error - immediate abort when expected to
succeed." messages.

Please help me in this regard.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

kiku_gi

Below is the long output from my report file for the failures.

I've just installed the LSB 4.0 Beta 1 release on all of our IA-32, IA-64, and AMD64 systems running Red Hat GNU/Linux versions 4 and 5. For each platform with the new LSB installation, I then ran test builds of a large mathematical library that I'm developing, and got a compilation error that can be distilled to this simple example: % cat lsb-bug.c #include #include double clock_ticks_per_second; void lsb_bug(void) { clock_ticks_per_second = (double)CLK_TCK; } % lsbcc -c -Werror-implicit-function-declaration -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes lsb-bug.c lsb-bug.

Alexey, Vladimir LSB 4.0. Jeff: builders were the biggest problem. Mats: ia32 issue that was on IRC; some of the builds for that architecture weren't built off the tags, and are too old. Jeff: any other archs? Mats: ok on x86-64; don't have results on anything else. Darren: what's the problem? Mats: dtk-manager doesn't pick up on the cairo test journal. Darren: Jiri is running tests with the beta now; should be able to report if it's a problem. Jeff: can those results be sent to us? Darren: not a problem, except workload. Jeff: can do automatically. Jeff: new autotest results page.

Wichmann, Darren Davis, Russ Herrold, Robert Schweikert, Jesper Thomschultz, Kay Tate, Jiri Dluhos, Ted Tso, Alexey Khoroshilov 4.0 beta. Alexey: SI tools may be totally overlooked. Jeff: tested? Alexey: against 3.2, not necessarily 4.0. Jeff: will pull in manually if necessary. Ted: will we have to integrate the SI tools with the SI? Alexey: yes, have made a RPM of the SI tarball. Ted: should merge the 4.0 SI with the 4.0 SI tools and do a check to make sure everything works. Should probably do tests on our side as well. Jeff: can Alexey do one set, and I do other? Alexey: yes.