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

Re: a couple of questions on LSB compliance

Many thanks.Comments are below:

On Dec 7, 11:48am in "Re: a couple of ques", Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org> writes:
> > 1. The FHS has conditions "If the X Window System is present". Does
> > the LSB mandate presence of the window system (i.e. the support
> > files /usr/X11R6 etc)?
> X11R6 will be a required part of a fully LSB compliant system.
Ok, so any tests related to the X Window System whilst possibly optional
for FHS conformance will be mandatory for LSB conformance.

> > 2. The FHS has conditions "dependent on the version of the X Window
> > System supported". Does the LSB mandate the version of the X Window System
> > that is X11R6 ?
> Yes.  I just talked to Dirk Hondel (of XFree86) about some of the X11R6
> stuff in FHS and LSB.  We may be making some minor clarifications to the
> standard on questions like this that aren't fully addressed in FHS 2.0.
Ok. Also once we have some tests that may help to flush out some issues
with the specs.

> > 3. The FHS talks about presence of directories. Does the LSB
> > require that the mandatory directories be actual directories, or
> > are symlinks be allowed?
> The current specification does not directly answer this question.  A
> future version will be more specific about this.  There may be some
> cases where it is not allowed.  There will be cases where it is allowed.
Should the test suite draw the attention of the user to any symlinks
by issuing warnings (not fail results) - or should we just allow either
for now - I suspect the latter would be preferrred.

> > 4. The FHS does not specify directory permissions for the mandatory
> > file hierarchy. Does the LSB demand any particular directory
> > permissions or should that be left unspecified (i.e that the
> > directories be searchable only)?
> Permissions are unspecified by FHS at this time.  Requiring
> searchability would be an LSB extension of FHS, but is probably
> reasonable for most directories.

We'll leave permissions unspecified, but test for searchability. This
may throw up some issues but hopefully they can be identified and
resolved during a beta test cycle.

Reply to: