Re: NEED HELP: Making woody LSB compliant
Martin Schulze writes...
> Moin!
>
> I've received several requests to update woody in order to make it
> compliant with the LSB (which version btw.?)
For compliance, 1.3 currently. 2.0 will be released in December.
> including one from the
> DPL. Hence, it may be worth discussing the possibility.
>
> Below are several tasks where YOUR HELP is required.
>
> According to Anthony we need
> <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/lsb/dists/woody/lsb/main/binary-i386/>
These are a year old so should probably be reviewed to make sure they
are still relevant or don't need additional updating for LSB 1.3.(As
you mention below)
> Updated alien
> Updated glibc
> Updated kernel-(headers|source|image) 2.4.19
> Updated pax
The lsb package was also just updated for 1.3, which adds a couple archs
, a missing dependency on pax, and some other stuff.
The separate OpenI18N standard was merged into the LSB at 1.3 so there
are additional requirements that are being tested for now. These are
mostly requirements on the commands provided by the LSB and _will_
require patches to fix. I haven't yet file bugs against these packages
but will ASAP. I know Red Hat and SuSE have been adding these patches
to their in development releases in the last few weeks. I do not know
if the patches have been accepted upstream yet. There's a rumor that
they affect performance.
So the older versions of the 1.3 test suite didn't test for the OpenI18N
stuff but newer versions do. If we don't want to deal with these
patches for a woody point release then we might be able to run the
older version of the test suite. However the clock is ticking as that
version will expire at some point now that the new one is out. Details
at http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/docs/testsuites.html
> The glibc changes are in unstable and upstream CVS, and have
> already been tested in released versions of Red Hat, SuSE and
> probably other distributions.
Again there may need to be additional changes for the new test suites.
> The kernel changes have been tested everywhere that runs 2.4.19.
Is the kernel going to be updated for the next woody point release?
Some of the tests only pass with 2.4.20+ IIRC
> The pax changes are straightforward and have been tested in both
> testing and unstable for a couple of months.
>
> The alien changes have been in testing and unstable for a similar
> amount of time.
Yeah these are probably fine.
> Changes in the kernel most probably means that the security updates
> would have to be altered again. Same thing for glibc.
yuk.
> Unfortunately I can't find the source for the above packages.
>
> I also remember some talk about start-stop-daemon having to be
> altered. What about this one?
Maybe Chris Lawrence knows, I haven't been paying attention to that part.
> There's also an upload to woody-proposed-updates of the lsb package
> which says "Support LSB 1.2 in woody. Includes all changes through
> 1.2-6 in sid."
As I said above we'll want the new 1.3 version. I'm not sure if it needs
backporting or not.
> HELP REQUIRED
> -------------
>
> Task: Find source for the above packages
>
> Task: Review and discuss the changes against original packages
>
> Task: Review the LSBvN and discuss whether only these four packages
> need to be updated or whether more require an update
I will publish test suite results that can help determine this.
> Task: Find out whether the lsb package is required
It doesn't need to be installed on the system by the default install,
the certification process will optionally install it with instructions
from the submitter on how to do so. I recommend that the new version
be available in woody but it doesn't need to be installed by default.
At some point I would like to see an "LSB Runtime" task that installs
it, but that's probably a sarge thing.
> Task: Review the changes in the lsb package
>
> Task: Find out which LSB spec we would like to meet, v1.9 is out for
> reviewing
I think v1.3 is enough for woody. v1.9 adds c++ and will need a newer
version than would be easily added to woody I think.
Task: Run the test suites and application battery on each of the
architectures we want to support. I think that means i386, ia64, ppc,
and s390.
I can do ia64 and maybe i386.
Task: Determine what effort/changes we want to put into woody and what
effort/changes for sarge. This isn't to discourage LSB compliance for
woody, only to make sure that we accept the effort/changes for woody
that we're comfortable with.
Thanks,
--
Matt Taggart
taggart@debian.org
Reply to: