Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian
On Aug 3, 2:16am in "Re: LSB 1.0 as it re", Matt Taggart wrote:
> Andrew Josey writes...
> > Many of the test results are FIP result codes, which means that
> > Further Information needs to be Provided in order to resolve
> > the result. These are not automatically failures.
> But they render the test useless right? In most of the FIP cases it was a
> compiler warning that caused it. Wouldn't it be good to get those cleaned up
> so the tests run?
Yes we can certainly look at them to see if any fixes can be applied.
In some compiler warning cases they
are checking for presence of POSIX required symbols which gcc
warns folks not to use. Until POSIX gets rid of them we do need
still to check for their presence.
> > Btw, in your digested results files and summaries it would
> > be most useful to keep the relevant test output and importantly
> > the result code in their too, otherwise context is being lost
> Well the full report and journal files are there so you can get the context
> from that if you need it. I was trying to generate something that wasn't 559
> pages long.
Yes- thanks the journal is helpful.
> I think in the future I'll use Chris Yeoh's parser. I wish I had know about
> before I did the digest this morning :(
There are also some other report writer tools in the contrib
directory under the TET directory.