Re: Bug#186140: Bug#206210: diff: does not comply with LSB 1.3 (fwd)
[-lsb added to Cc: list.]
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:52:09PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> >This is a good example of "not specific". Giving a url reference to a
> >*410* page document and saying "guess the problem" is not sufficient.
>
> Here's the list of failed tests (from the summary) that affect the
> coreutils package:
> /tset/LI18NUX2K.L1/utils/fold/fold 1
...
> /tset/LI18NUX2K.L1/utils/fold/fold 1 Failed
> Test Information:
> * When this utility folds the lines without -b option, verify
> each line
> is not folded in the middle of character.
> Some characters are not wrapped on the assigned width.
This isn't really useful for maintainers who aren't into the zen of LSB.
The onus is really on the -lsb folks to be providing good patches,
and adequate explanation of why they're sensible, possibly supported by
references to POSIX or similar. The test suites are for finding problems
to look at, they're not the entire job.
> Please discuss this with the RM. He has stated that packages must comply
> with LSB 1.3 (and LSB 1.3 includes the OpenI18N standard, which is the
> main problem here).
Yup. And the onus is on the -lsb folks to make this happen by sending
patches to maintainers. If it turns out the -lsb folks aren't able to
do this, I'll be seriously considering dropping the requirement; but I
don't expect that to be the case.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:32:56AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> *I don't care.* Tell me what part of the standard is at issue. As I
> already said, the goal is LSB compliance, not test suite compliance.
It'll be some silly details in the POSIX spec, fwiw.
> That is the *first time* the term "OpenI18N" came up. Keep coming up
> with little details like that and a specific section reference and you
> might get somewhere. I think I also specifically mentioned things like a
> simple test case other than "run this test suite and get 400+ pages of
> output".
It's pretty easy to get the simple test cases from the test suite,
generally.
The right thing to do here might be to mark the bug as forwarded to
debian-lsb@lists.debian.org until there's a more detailed explanation
of what needs to be done to the package.
Hope that clarifies things.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Reply to: