Re: conformance definitions
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:35:02AM -0600, George Kraft IV wrote:
>
> What the LSB has to date is the application battery which consists of Apache,
> Mozilla, and Rsync. An LSB build environment should be able to build these, and
> an LSB distribution should be able to run these.
Some comments:
The rsync package doesn't use the 'lsb' namespace for the package
name. It does not carry the 'lsb' requirement. I suggest a versioned
requirement of "lsb >= 1.0"
The apache package has an odd format for the filename. It should be
lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.rpm (not lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.rpm). Even
better would be lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.lsb perhaps.
Mozilla doesn't have binaries yet and building mozilla requires
development tools outside of the LSB.
> ftp://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/app-battery/
>
> I must admit that no too many people have looked/reviewed this, and we don't
> have a written FVT to determine if the program is working as expected. Perhaps
> we could get a volunteer to spend a day or two on this?
>
> Does this sound more finite?
Yes, a bit - the FVT is going to be needed of course.
Cheers,
Matt
Reply to: