This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: LSB Core test suite results for glibc-2.17
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Andrey Ponomarenko <aponomarenko at rosalab dot ru>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:21:58 +0000
- Subject: Re: LSB Core test suite results for glibc-2.17
- References: <510A6D31.30708@rosalab.ru>
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
> Tests have found 47 known problems (described in detail here [2]) and two new
> [2]
> http://upstream-tracker.org/olver_reports/glibc-2.17/Fedora_18/summary.htm#fails
I don't see any references on that page to bug reports in glibc Bugzilla.
It would be useful if someone could review those "known" problems and file
bug reports in Bugzilla if they seem to reflect bugs present in current
glibc sources, or add links from that page (I don't know who maintains it)
to existing bug reports where bugs are already open for the issues
described. (Of course, if an issue appears to be a kernel bug rather than
a glibc bug, then this should be stated rather than filing a glibc bug
report).
(If a glibc bug was reported for such an issue and closed as WONTFIX or
INVALID but you still think the issue is a bug that should be fixed in
glibc, consider reopening the old bug with appropriate rationale.)
Note: references to standards such as POSIX or ISO C are generally
preferred in bug reports to references to LSB; POSIX and ISO C are
standards glibc tries to follow whereas LSB is more about documenting
existing practice. So please try to trace requirements being violated by
glibc back to POSIX and ISO C where possible.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com