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

RE: LSB woody test results

At 2003/9/16 17:46-0700  Wichmann, Mats D writes:
> > > 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.
> Sigh.  expect is used to automate the process of feeding
> the root password to tests that need it, but has nothing
> at all to do with LSB conformance... but it seems most 
> other distros do include it in their "keystone" package,
> so that installing "lsb" gives you not just LSB conformance,
> but also enough to run the test suite, if that makes sense.

Expect isn't needed to run the lsb-runtime-test suites, just to build
them. I'm currently trying to work out how to make the
lsb-runtime-test build process a lot friendlier (ie, non-root,
non-hard coded paths etc), but haven't managed to work out a clean
solution yet. fakeroot gets close, though the inability to su to other
users is rather problematic.

That being said vsc-lite (commands and utilities) which may be
introduced for 2.0 will be using expect at runtime, though its bundled
with the test suite.

IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia

Reply to: