On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:00, Matt Taggart wrote: > Jeff Licquia writes... > > > I have begun running the LSB runtime test suite against woody, with the > > goal of identifying the current problems with woody. My results will be > > placed at http://hackers.progeny.com/~licquia/lsb/. > > Thanks! I'll add a link from my p.d.o page.
Thank you. I suppose this will mean I'll need a real index.html. :-) > You don't mention installing the lsb package, did you? If so which > version? Yes, the lsb package was in the apt-get line. I installed whatever's currently in woody, which seems to be 1.1.0-11. > I plan to setup an apt source for backported lsb packages so > that people can install the new 1.3 versions of stuff on woody. (but > separate from any backports needed to fix non-lsb packages, we'll > need to figure that out at some point) Excellent. If you need any help, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be looking forward to its announcement. > The cpio and tar failures will go away by installing pax. The spec > requires posix versions of cpio and tar and the test suites will > happily use pax if available to fulfill that need. This is how other > distributions have been dealing with it and IMHO is rather stupid > but oh well. A dependency on pax has recently been added to the lsb > package to make this easier. I figured that this would be the case. How do you feel about adding some of the other dependencies? I notice, for example, that Tcl/Tk and expect constitute some of the failures.
