At 2003/9/16 17:46-0700 Wichmann, Mats D writes: > > > 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. > > Sigh. expect is used to automate the process of feeding > the root password to tests that need it, but has nothing > at all to do with LSB conformance... but it seems most > other distros do include it in their "keystone" package, > so that installing "lsb" gives you not just LSB conformance, > but also enough to run the test suite, if that makes sense.
Expect isn't needed to run the lsb-runtime-test suites, just to build them. I'm currently trying to work out how to make the lsb-runtime-test build process a lot friendlier (ie, non-root, non-hard coded paths etc), but haven't managed to work out a clean solution yet. fakeroot gets close, though the inability to su to other users is rather problematic. That being said vsc-lite (commands and utilities) which may be introduced for 2.0 will be using expect at runtime, though its bundled with the test suite. Chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia
