RE: Request binary build info doc. (And run_tests buglet)
Sorry this is old, I'm taking some time on an airplane
(sigh, yes, again) to reread and respond to some saved email.
> In conversations with the team, perhaps a warning
> rather than an error might be wisest for the binary rpm package
> of the LSB runtime test suite (for example if it cannot find
> the LSB dynamic
> linker), although there is a counter argument that says we should
> not allow our certification test suite to even install if
> the required dependencies in the system are not met, since
> otherwise how would we be able to tell that the system under test
> and the journal sent in, is not in fact from a system
> not providing the required dependencies.
> The good news is that other parts of the certification process will
> require rpm packages to be installed that do test for the
to what extent are we able to have package (rpm) level dependencies?
I'm completely ignorant as to what happens when a package is
imported in some way for installation to a non-RPM system.
Are the same sorts of dependencies maintained when a tool like
alien (isn't that what Debian calls it?) is used?
I realize that the above is just a comment, not spec wording,
so I'm not criticising, but we have to continue to be careful
not to imply that it's an rpm-based world, much though it would
make our lives easier if there were a single common packaging system.
In Re: the suggestion of a warning, did a bug need to be filed
to track this to some agreement on the proper behavior?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email firstname.lastname@example.org