Re: LSB.fhs failure digest for Debian Sample Implementation
Andrew Josey writes...
> Matt
> Thanks for your feedback. I'm assuming this is the latest cut of the
> LSB-FHS testsuite.
No, unfortunately this is still the August 1st results. I hope to re-run using
the latest stuff later this week.
> Some of the failure output from the test suite would
> be helpful for the ones categorized as test bugs so we can analyze
> them further.
>
> A general comment on the results below -- many of these below are
> type C assertions (optional) and return FIP result codes. Many if not
> all of these would resolve to PASS by a manual declaration that the
> subsystem/file is not supported on the platform under test.
> (i attach a note at the end of this mail on understanding the
> result codes).
I guess my point is that FIP results are time consuming since you have to go
through and look at them(or add the manual declaration mentioned above). It
would be nice it the test knew how to deal with these common problems.
Eventually the test suite should be able run from cron and only failures
mailed off for people to look at. Having to do these be hand is a PITA.
> Some background on the process and methodology used for
> the certification test suites is at:
> http://www.opengroup.org/testing/lsb-fhs/process.html
OK.
> Comments below on individual tests:
[snip]
> > LSB.fhs
> > -------
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc/etc-tc 7
> > "/etc/gettydefs: file not found"
> > This is only provided by the Debian "gettyps" package which is non-free.
> Category: no change required
> This is a type C assertion and gives a PASS or FIP result,
> i.e. if you do not support the subsystem you can manually
> resolve this to pass.
My point was the file is only provided by a "non-free" package(at least on
Debian). Do other distros ship this file(and if so as part of what package)?
This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc/etc-tc 29
> > "/etc/hosts.equiv: file not found"
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc/etc-tc 30
> > "/etc/hosts.lpd: file not found"
> ditto
Optional. These tests should be able to provide non-FIP results.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc/etc-tc 38
> > "/etc/sgml: directory not found"
> ditto
Optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc-x11/etc-x11-tc 2
> > "/etc/X11/XF86Config"
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc-x11/etc-x11-tc 3
> > "/etc/X11/Xmodmap: file not found"
> ditto
FHS section 3.7.5.2 is confusing. First it says, "must be" and then below it
says these files are optional. Can this be made clearer? If it's not optional
then I'll add the "xbase-clients" Debian package to my sample implementation.
These tests should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/sbin/sbin-tc 17
> > "/sbin/fastboot: file does not exist or is not executable"
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/sbin/sbin-tc 18
> > "/sbin/fasthalt: file does not exist or is not executable"
> > Not in Debian (es and ja manpages do exist though)
> Type C assertion , comments as per the ditto ones above
These tests should be able to provide a non-FIP result. Debian might want to
add these commands to the "sysvinit" package(where shutdown and halt live).
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/bin/bin-tc 4
> > "/usr/bin/tclsh: No such file or directory"
> > Provided by tcl8.* (tcl8.3 is the latest currently)
> > Is tcl required by the LSB?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/bin/bin-tc 5
> > "/usr/bin/mh: directory not found"
> > Provided by Debian "mh" or "nmh" packages.
> > Is mh required by the LSB?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/bin/bin-tc 6
> > "/usr/bin/wish: does not exist or is not executable"
> > Provided by tk8.* (tk8.3 is the latest currently)
> > Is tk required by the LSB?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/bin/bin-tc 7
> > "/usr/bin/expect: does not exist or is not executable"
> > Provided by expect* (expect5.31 is the latest currently)
> > Is expect required by the LSB?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/share/share-tc 3
> > "/usr/share/games: directory not found"
> > Add to base-files
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
My comment was that Debian could add this to base-files(although packages that
use it provide it). I suppose there might be a situation where someone had a
Debian system without any games installed and wanted to install a LSB
compliant game that didn't check to make sure this directory was available
before using it.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/share/share-tc 6
> > "/usr/share/nls: directory not found"
> > Add to base-files?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. Nothing in Debian uses this directory. Does this need to be
deprecated? If not, Debian could add this to base-files.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/share/share-tc 8
> > "/usr/share/tmac: directory not found"
> > Add to base-files?
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. Nothing in Debian uses this directory. Does this need to be
deprecated? If not, Debian could add this to base-files.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/var/cache-fonts/cache-fonts-tc 1
> > "/var/cache/fonts: directory not found"
> > Add to base files? Nothing in Debian uses it.
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. Nothing in Debian uses this directory. Does this need to be
deprecated? If not, Debian could add this to base-files.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/var/games/games-tc 1
> > "/var/games: directory not found"
> > Add to base-files
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
My comment was that Debian could add this to base-files(although packages that
use it provide it). Same comment as the /usr/share/games test above.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/var/spool-lpd/spool-lpd-tc 2
> > "/var/spool/lpd/lpd.lock: file not found"
> > Not in Debian
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
/var/spool/lpd is optional. This test should be able to provide a non-FIP
result.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/var/spool-rwho/spool-rwho-tc 1
> > "/var/spool/rwho: directory not found"
> > Not in Debian
> Type C assertion, coments as above....
Optional. Nothing in Debian uses this directory. Does this need to be
deprecated? If not, Debian could add this to base-files.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/etc-opt/etc-opt-tc 1
> > "/etc/opt: directory not found"
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/root/opt/opt-tc 1
> > "/opt: directory not found"
Yes, these should be added to the base-files package.
>
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/x11r6/x11r6-tc 2
> > "The symbolic link /usr/bin/X11 shall exist and point to /usr/X11R6/bin"
> > On Debian it looks like "/usr/bin/X11 -> ../X11R6/bin" Is this acceptable?
> > Fix the test?
> Can you send the test output so we can analyze the failure
All that was in the report/journals was,
"exit code 3 returned, expected 0"
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/usr/lib/lib-tc 2
> > "stderr:/usr/lib/sendmail expected to be symlink to /usr/sbin/sendmail,
> > pointed to /usr/sbin/exim"
> > Test is broken
> Why do you think the test is broken please supply more information
Drew Streib/Anthony Towns/ Andrew Josey already responded to this one. I'm not
sure what the final outcome was though.
> > /tset/LSB.fhs/var/opt/opt-tc 1
> > "/var/opt: directory not found"
> > Add to base-files?
> Non compliance
Yes, it should be added to the base-files package.
> I attach some notes on how to understand result codes in the
> test suites
[snip]
Noted, thanks.
--
Matt Taggart
taggart@fc.hp.com
Reply to: