Re: NEED HELP: Making woody LSB compliant
Matt Taggart wrote:
> > 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)
Thanks a lot for your mail, it is quite comprehensive.
> 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
What patches would be required exactly?
> 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
Since we can't meet newer specs anyway, I wonder if there is much gain
trying to meet an older spec which will expire $when. $when being
which date?
> > 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.
Ouch!
> > 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
Quite unlikely since they pose new packages which would require older
packages to disappear and ensure modules packages to be updated as
well. Quite unlikely.
> > Changes in the kernel most probably means that the security updates
> > would have to be altered again. Same thing for glibc.
>
> yuk.
... and modules packages in case the ABI changed as well... I begin
do believe that we cannot make woody LSB compliant without major
hassles and hence would rather see developers ensure that sarge meets
LSB 1.9 or 2.0 when it is released. There's not much point in woody
and LSB 1.3, since it's an older standard/spec and since sarge is to
be released soon.
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: