Re: LSB-FHS2.2beta3 update

[Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org>]

Chris
Thanks. Fodder for the tomorrows update.
Do you think we should put the effort in to renumber
all the assertions to align with the FHS2.2 spec?
regards
Andrew

On Jul 27,  2:14am in "Re: LSB-FHS2.2beta3 ", Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> Andrew Josey writes:
> > All
> > Another update is now available,
> > at ftp://ftp.xopen.org/pub/lsb/test_suites/beta/
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for the update. I think the following tests are incorrectly
> returning the FAIL code instead of FIP:
>
> 520|40 1 17369 1 1|Reference 5.11.1-1(C)
> 520|40 1 17369 1 2|If the subsystem is supported
> 520|40 1 17369 1 3|The /var/spool/lpd directory exists and is searchable
> 520|40 1 17369 1 4|/var/spool/lpd: directory not found
> 520|40 1 17369 1 5|exit code 1 returned, expected 0
> 520|40 1 17369 1 6|This test result needs to be manually resolved
> 220|40 1 1 21:09:16|FAIL
>
> 520|40 2 17369 1 1|Reference 5.11.1-2(C)
> 520|40 2 17369 1 2|If the implementation has the lpd daemon running then
> 520|40 2 17369 1 3|The lock file /var/spool/lpd/lpd.lock exists
> 520|40 2 17369 1 4|/var/spool/lpd/lpd.lock: file not found
> 520|40 2 17369 1 5|exit code 1 returned, expected 0
> 520|40 2 17369 1 6|This test result needs to be manually resolved
> 220|40 2 1 21:09:16|FAIL
>
> 520|42 1 17721 1 1|Reference 5.11.2-1(C)
> 520|42 1 17721 1 2|If the subsystem is supported
> 520|42 1 17721 1 3|The /var/spool/rwho directory exists and is searchable
> 520|42 1 17721 1 4|/var/spool/rwho: directory not found
> 520|42 1 17721 1 5|exit code 1 returned, expected 0
> 520|42 1 17721 1 6|This test result needs to be manually resolved, returning
FIP result
> 220|42 1 1 21:09:18|FAIL
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris.
> --
> yeohc@au1.ibm.com
> IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
> Canberra, Australia
>-- End of excerpt from Christopher Yeoh