On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:51:34 PM Alan Cox wrote: > > LSB has taken some criticism for the tests being too hard to run and too > > hard to interpret. It's partly true as Denis notes above, but good > > testing is not simple, and LSB had a fair bit of contributed code which > > came with its own testing methods, you do what you can. Still, I feel > > like productive collaboration with upstreams could make tests that work > > for abi/api stability both in the upstream's environment and still be > > usable in the LSB test environment. The "market" for such things is > > highlighted in this notice: > > > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2015-September/001 > > 152.html > > > > Look in particular at reference [3] and look for the changed line 57. > > The value of the tests isn't just the LSB compliance though - they find > an awful lot of screwups, accidental compatibility breaks and the like > even if you are not trying to be LSB.
I know from the Fedora point of view and I suspect the Debian side also, the lack of support for all architectures we care about makes it hard to support LSB. In fedora we kinda fudge the non official LSB arches by mkaing up what the LSB is to generally match the other arches. something like LSB is not sexy or really all that fun to work on. I get why people in Debian do not want to work on fixing the issues they are seeing. There is also not a lot of visible demand for lsb, of everything installed on my system only google- chrome requires lsb. There is definitely a lot of benefit and value in the tests, ABI checking, really should be done after every build in an OS to ensure that it is correct and not changed. Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ lsb-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
