Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0393 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 0393.

Report 0393 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0393
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0012
    Raised 1992-11-24 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Internationalised System Calls and Libraries (XPG4)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSX4 version 4.2.4
    Test Identification XPG4.os/procenv/confstr 1
    Problem Summary PG4R.012 In test 1 for XPG4.os/procenv/confstr(), tests are made to see whether the following XPG4 commands are also found within the path returned by confstr(). It is our opinion that these tests are incorrec...
    Problem Text
    In test 1 for XPG4.os/procenv/confstr(), tests are made to see whether
    the following XPG4 commands are also found within the path returned by
    confstr(). It is our opinion that these tests are incorrect for soft
    branding, since the commands do not have to be implemented until hard
    branding, and therefore may not exist. Also it is dubious to test for
    'alias', 'cd', 'fc', 'read', 'umask', and 'unalias', since these may
    be implemented as shell builtins and therefore would not exist as
    separate commands on the system.

    The complete list of commands which are searched for, but which should
    not be in the list for soft branding, or at all are:

    alias asa c89 cd cksum command expand fc getconf getopts locale
    localedef logger man patch pathchk pax read renice umask unalias
    unexpand wait
    Test Output
    400|768 1 1 07:10:17|IC Start
    200|768 1 07:10:17|TP Start
    520|768 1 25437 1 1|no executable "alias" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 2|no executable "asa" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 3|no executable "c89" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 4|no executable "cd" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 5|no executable "cksum" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 6|no executable "command" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 7|no executable "expand" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 8|no executable "fc" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 9|no executable "getconf" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 10|no executable "getopts" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 11|no executable "locale" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 12|no executable "localedef" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 13|no executable "logger" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 14|no executable "man" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 15|no executable "patch" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 16|no executable "pathchk" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 17|no executable "pax" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 18|no executable "read" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 19|no executable "renice" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 20|no executable "umask" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 21|no executable "unalias" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 22|no executable "unexpand" command found
    520|768 1 25437 1 23|no executable "wait" command found
    220|768 1 1 07:10:18|FAIL
    410|768 1 1 07:10:18|IC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    The test for the presence of the utilities described in XCU is only
    performed in the case that the implementation claims to support POSIX.2.
    This is determined from the result of a call to sysconf(_SC_2_VERSION)
    which should return -1 if the system does not support POSIX.2.

    It would seem that the implementation claims to support POSIX.2, but does
    not. The claimed test suite deficiency is not apparent.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    This Interpretation request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority