[svlug] Update; Re: POSIX Test Results

[Ian Nandhra]

Actually the tests have to be re-run and take about an hour. It's cranking
through now and I will upload them to the Web and post the results to this
list to consume even more bandwidth ;-)

Another thought to ponder; there are some very large Orgs lurking around
Linux right now. I would submit that it would be *far* better for the Linux
world to run these tests and take whatever action is required rather than
someone else (the Seattle area springs to mind). 

Cheers,


At 10:13 PM 8/21/98 -0700, Ray Olszewski wrote:
>Thanks for the additional information. One comment you made leaves me a bit
>confused.
>
>At 08:56 PM 8/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>[deleted]
>>>Ray Olszewski wrote:
>>>>disturbing to me) a long report indicating that the Red Hat distribution
>>>>fails most tests of POSIX compliance. (Thanks to the site's use of
frames, I
>>>>can't get the URL for this page, but it is there a couple of levels under
>>>>"Standards.") 
>>>
>>I dont recall that there was a comment about pass or fail, rather that the
>>tests had been run if anyone was interested. If you would like me to send
>>you the test results, I'd be happy to do so. 
>
>I read over the results as posted on the www.linuxstandards.org site under
>"Standards," particularly the Red Hat entry called "Final Results." For each
>test, there is listed the actual result and the "required" result. None
match. 
>
>I also looked at the link earlier on the page that goes to "Interpreting the
>Test Results." There it lists the possible result codes and identifies some
>of them as FAILURE -- with the wording "result codes marked with a * can be
>considered FAILURES." Asterisks appear next to FAIL, UNRESOLVED, and
>NOT_INITIATED. In the Red Hat, "Final Results" report, EVERY ONE of the
>actual results is one of these three codes. 
>
>I infer from this presentation that "the Red Hat distribution fails most
>tests of POSIX compliance." Perhaps "most" was too gentle.
>
>If it is not reasonable to interpret these results as I did, I would welcome
>some help in making a better interpretation. I imagine that many who
>actually read the results posted on the Web site will interpret them as I
>did, though, so I would suggest that if a clarification is needed, it appear
>on the Web site, not just in a private reply (or a reply just to the svlug
>list).
>
>------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
>Ray Olszewski                                        -- Han Solo
>762 Garland Drive
>Palo Alto, CA  94303-3603
>650.321.3561 voice                               ray at comarre.com
>650.322.1209 fax                 http://www.comarre.com/ray.html
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Ian Nandhra                         Phone : 209 956 3047
NC Laboratories Inc.                FAX   : 209 956 1747
Suite G161, 4719 Quail Lakes Drive  email : ian at nc-labs.com
Stockton, CA 95207, USA.            http//www.nc-labs.com


--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo at svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe