109 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
109 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
The following is the response to the ballot resolutions for P1003.3,
|
||
|
|
Draft 11.0 Part 2. I apologize if the form of the response is
|
||
|
|
incorrect. In brief, we reject without additional comment the 4 objections
|
||
|
|
that were rejected in the resolution of the item.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
| Part 2 Section(s) 4.2.3.2-4.2.3.4 Page(s) 85-86 Line(s) 214-240
|
||
|
|
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
|
||
|
|
| Identification: 0122 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Assertions 3, 4, 6 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
|
||
|
|
| portable way of modifying a process' list of supplementary group
|
||
|
|
| ID's, testing the information returned by this call is questionable
|
||
|
|
| if _SC_NGROUPS_MAX is greater than zero. Since there is no portable
|
||
|
|
| way to set the number of supplementary group id's in a process,
|
||
|
|
| verifying that the information returned by getgroups() is correct
|
||
|
|
| can not be done portably.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Required Action:
|
||
|
|
| Change assertions 3, 4, and 6 to (B) or (D) assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
|
| Change to C type assertions with the condition:
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| "If the implementation provides a mechanism to create a list of
|
||
|
|
| supplementary Ids for a process"
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| TR3:
|
||
|
|
| I see no reason for changing this text.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| POSIX.1 defines NGROUPS_MAX as an option. POSIX.1 does not define
|
||
|
|
| the method of implementing NGROUPS_MAX. Therefore, according to
|
||
|
|
| our definition for "conditional features" the method of implementing
|
||
|
|
| NGROUPS_MAX is not a conditional feature.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| This is a PCTS installation procedure.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
| Part 2 Section(s) 4.7.1.2 Page(s) 101 Line(s) 621-624
|
||
|
|
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
|
||
|
|
| Identification: 0123 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Assertions 3 and 4 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
|
||
|
|
| portable way of establishing the controlling terminal for a process,
|
||
|
|
| there is no way to verify the correctness of this function.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Required Action:
|
||
|
|
| Change assertions 3 and 4 to (B) or (D) assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:DISCUSSION:
|
||
|
|
| TR1:
|
||
|
|
| Change to C type assertions with the condition "If the implementation
|
||
|
|
| provides a method for allocating a controling terminal:"
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| TR3:
|
||
|
|
| The process should already have a controlling terminal. The PCTS doesn't
|
||
|
|
| have to establish a process with a different controlling
|
||
|
|
| terminal to check these assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|
||
|
|
| 1) REJECT the resolution with no additional comments. We will then
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
| Part 2 Section(s) 5.1.2.2 Page(s) 110 Line(s) 104-105
|
||
|
|
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
|
||
|
|
| Identification: 0124 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Assertion 8 is classified incorrectly. Since there is no portable
|
||
|
|
| way of causing the underlying directory to be read, there is no way
|
||
|
|
| to test when the st_atime field of the directory should be marked
|
||
|
|
| for update.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Required Action:
|
||
|
|
| Change assertion 8 (B) or (D) assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|
||
|
|
| It is at least known that a call to opendir() followed by a call
|
||
|
|
| to readdir() will cause the underlying directory to be read.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
| Part 2 Section(s) 5.6.1.1 Page(s) 149 Line(s) 1232-1237
|
||
|
|
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
|
||
|
|
| Identification: 0126 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Assertions 4 and 5 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
|
||
|
|
| portable way of creating a character special file or a block special
|
||
|
|
| file, there is no portable way to test these assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Required Action:
|
||
|
|
| Change assertions 4 and 5 to (B) or (D) assertions.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|
||
|
|
| It is inconceivable that a POSIX.a conforming system does not have
|
||
|
|
| a character special file and a block special file. There is no
|
||
|
|
| requirement for the PCTS to create these only for the PCTS to
|
||
|
|
| know the address of them.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|