Re: testing gzip (was: donating test cases)
Mats
I expect there was a change in 2.2. So far no one has reported
the problem- many must use hardlinks.
If it affects LSB certification please file a bug report
to http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/PR
I'll correct the error message in the source tree,
and look to fix up the tests to allow symlinks.
thanks
Andrew
On Jul 11, 7:38am in "testing gzip (was: ", Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> > In the case of the LSB-FHS test suite, the test specification is based
> > on the FHS 2.0 specification, see www.pathname.com, as modified by the
> > requirements placed by the LSB specification (for example LSB mandates
> > presence of the X Window system which is optional in the FHS).
>
> Speaking of LSB-fhs....
>
> As of right now, root/bin/bin-tc (testcases 47/48)
> test for the existence of two links to gzip,
> gunzip and zcat.
>
> I realize there was some debate about the
> zcat link in the spec authority meeting yesterday,
> but disregarding that,
>
> the test is requiring both links to be hard links,
> yet I see no wording anywhere that requires that
> to be the case, a symlink should also be legal.
>
> If the test were to do `ls -Li' instead of
> `ls -i' in determining the inode number, it
> would work in either case. Is this a reasonable
> change? Alternatively, the algorithm used
> elsewhere (test for symlink, then test for hard
> link) could also be used.
>
> Secondly, the error message in tp47 is wrong,
> it's testing for gunzip but reports that zcat
> is not correct...if SF ever answers, I'll file
> a bug on that one.
>
> Mats
>-- End of excerpt from Wichmann, Mats D
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: