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

Re: LSB status?

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 00:01 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> [2006-06-05 23:59]:
> > I don't know how much work this is but given that the registration
> > document is rather long, do you think you could prepare an overview
> > where sarge falls short (and if the same applies for etch)?
> This is probably also a good opportunity to see what the status is
> of LSB support.  I'm BCCing Jeff Licquia who according to comments
> of Matt Taggart by IRC might be able to give a status overview.

Sarge has four sets of problems with the current LSB:

 - The lsb metapackages are suitable for 2.0, not 3.1.

 - The new desktop stuff in LSB 3.1 requires a newer version of libxml2
than is in sarge.

 - Some of the fixes in glibc 2.3.4 are needed, such as some thread
behavior bugfixes and some symbol fixes.

 - A PAM module behaves incorrectly under certain circumstances,
returning success instead of an error for a particular error condition.

All of these issues are fixed in etch as far as I know.

> Have you had a chance to do any tests recently, Jeff?

My last etch tests were done months ago, but I am preparing to run a new
set.  The last tests I ran would have been acceptable for passing the

Reply to: