Re: NEED HELP: Making woody LSB compliant
Martin Schulze wrote:
What patches would be required exactly?
See http://people.debian.org/~taggart/lsb/ia64-20030829.tj.annotate for
a list of failed tests and the bug numbers which contain links to the
patches. Patches for coreutils, diff and others are still required,
other maintainers have recently added patches to make the LSB 1.3 tests
pass with their packages. Summary:
Patches integrated by Debian maintainers: grep (#184884), bash (#184888)
LSB 1.3 patches accepted upstream: gawk, binutils, sed
Not yet done: util-linux (#184885), cpio (#184887), coreutils (#186140),
diff (#184886), other unresolved issues (probably glibc)
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?
There's no way that woody can be LSB 1.3-compliant since not even
unstable is. The only reachable goal is LSB 1.2 but I don't know when
the LSb 1.2 certification process expires.
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.
What about other architectures that don't have separate module packages?
There have been a lot of bug fixes e.g. for S/390 in recent kernels.
[Sorry, off-topic here]
... 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 1.2 might not be that much trouble.
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.
You are talking about LSB 1.3 being an older standard? I'm talking about
LSB 1.2... ;-)
Stefan
Reply to: