On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 00:01 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-05 23:59]: > > I don't know how much work this is but given that the registration > > document is rather long, do you think you could prepare an overview > > where sarge falls short (and if the same applies for etch)? > > This is probably also a good opportunity to see what the status is > of LSB support. I'm BCCing Jeff Licquia who according to comments > of Matt Taggart by IRC might be able to give a status overview.
Sarge has four sets of problems with the current LSB: - The lsb metapackages are suitable for 2.0, not 3.1. - The new desktop stuff in LSB 3.1 requires a newer version of libxml2 than is in sarge. - Some of the fixes in glibc 2.3.4 are needed, such as some thread behavior bugfixes and some symbol fixes. - A PAM module behaves incorrectly under certain circumstances, returning success instead of an error for a particular error condition. All of these issues are fixed in etch as far as I know. > Have you had a chance to do any tests recently, Jeff? My last etch tests were done months ago, but I am preparing to run a new set. The last tests I ran would have been acceptable for passing the LSB. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
