From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 15:54:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8F751B; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-x22d.google.com (mail-yh0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5DC31291; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f10so506736yha.32; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:54:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c8Oyjym55pf21vfCPyOgNEXWro+qoOPrO/Prdmpj8TY=; b=ZCGL13F424hvJ8V5Q0IcWM9238qxq4n+TPTMJ0j8xSStGhmONxab50j9ZNRbXiLAUN XwB8W7uu5sN/h01wH5+/xXNzDSzCaDNs4etbYPMnDG2geUkvToyD4LEYrkLFZCxoGMdT x1jEUQDqjpLoXa24MNN0Gzibv0YNOvPTufp5HiS015kPapO9Uhbis3J/cp/8wpIuEL93 fhuBuU/tNfI4xXVS/F+/qEPKW+PVPbkDQ+wYxYcW9LvugEQkzw6atlXh+j37IyI0dQQL X2TI3U2y1ymM5yqNDzSoz1AmhhXmTMKO/mUDfh4oYd1qYmXD7rrXyfLLL3oVD/vb8lbf fqKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.214.4 with SMTP id g4mr7768755ykf.41.1419004494985; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.90.131 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:54:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:54:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Deltas between FreeBSD and NetBSD and POSIX conformance (was "[Bug 194828] [test] lib.libc.sys.getcontext_test.setcontext_link fails on amd64, not i386") From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk To: Julio Merino Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:54:56 -0000 On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Julio Merino wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Garrett Cooper > wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 2014, at 2:28, Justin Cormack > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:35 AM, wrote: > >>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194828 > >>> > >>> --- Comment #12 from Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 > --- > >>> In a perfect world I would like for everything to be consistent > between FreeBSD > >>> and NetBSD, but that's not the way it should be, and that's a silly > ideal to > >>> hope for :). > >> > >> NetBSD dev here... I would rather that tests actually test behaviour > >> as defined in standards, especially for eg libc tests, and indeed I > >> have bunch of stuff to add more tests on standards compliance. So if > >> stuff is testing implementation internals it should go away, and if > >> NetBSDs behaviour is incorrect please file an issue, or if the test > >> setup is not eg standards compliant please file an issue > >> http://www.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/sendpr.cgi?gndb=netbsd > > That's a nice ideal... but in practice, the standard does sometimes > leave details up to the implementation and/or the implementation > provides custom extensions. Both need tests, and such tests will be > implementation-dependent. > > So how could we deal with this? Tests for the standard should really > be unified across both codebases, but there should be a way to > supplement them with implementation-specific tests. Not sure what the > best organization scheme for this would be, nor how we'd maintain the > "common code". > > > Establish a "BSD Operating Systems Foundation" and generate a Version Control System to be shared among participating establishments such as DragonFly BSD , FreeBSD , NetBSD , OpenBSD , and if there are others . Each participating establishment will maintain its own special parts and will pull common parts from the common Version Control System. The common Version Control System will be maintained by groups with committers from participating establishments . In that way , common parts will not be maintained separately . This will reduce costs , waste on human power by unnecessary repeated works , and therefore will improve common quality . Decisions will be made by voting and accepting the result . Since , participating establishments will continue to work on their operating systems , if any one wants to apply any different ideas , they may apply them onto their branches . My opinion is that , the persons in all of the BSD operating systems groups are very good human beings and only they need a common cooperation decision between themselves and work toward realization of it . It is not necessary to see specialization as a negative effect but a realization of alternative approaches . Over time , if any such specialization proves to be a more advantageous approach , it may be adopted by other groups . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk