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

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
> dependency.

A question,

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 lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Reply to: