[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB woody test results



On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:00, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Jeff Licquia writes...
> 
> > I have begun running the LSB runtime test suite against woody, with the
> > goal of identifying the current problems with woody.  My results will be
> > placed at http://hackers.progeny.com/~licquia/lsb/.
> 
> Thanks! I'll add a link from my p.d.o page.

Thank you.  I suppose this will mean I'll need a real index.html.  :-)

> You don't mention installing the lsb package, did you? If so which
> version? 

Yes, the lsb package was in the apt-get line.  I installed whatever's
currently in woody, which seems to be 1.1.0-11.

> I plan to setup an apt source for backported lsb packages so
> that people can install the new 1.3 versions of stuff on woody. (but
> separate from any backports needed to fix non-lsb packages, we'll
> need to figure that out at some point)

Excellent.  If you need any help, let me know.  Otherwise, I'll be
looking forward to its announcement.

> The cpio and tar failures will go away by installing pax. The spec
> requires posix versions of cpio and tar and the test suites will
> happily use pax if available to fulfill that need. This is how other
> distributions have been dealing with it and IMHO is rather stupid
> but oh well. A dependency on pax has recently been added to the lsb
> package to make this easier.

I figured that this would be the case.  How do you feel about adding
some of the other dependencies?  I notice, for example, that Tcl/Tk and
expect constitute some of the failures.



Reply to: