RE: Request binary build info doc. (And run_tests buglet)
Sorry this is old, I'm taking some time on an airplane
(sigh, yes, again) to reread and respond to some saved email.
> In conversations with the team, perhaps a warning
> rather than an error might be wisest for the binary rpm package
> of the LSB runtime test suite (for example if it cannot find
> the LSB dynamic
> linker), although there is a counter argument that says we should
> not allow our certification test suite to even install if
> the required dependencies in the system are not met, since
> otherwise how would we be able to tell that the system under test
> and the journal sent in, is not in fact from a system
> not providing the required dependencies.
> The good news is that other parts of the certification process will
> require rpm packages to be installed that do test for the
> dependency.
A question,
to what extent are we able to have package (rpm) level dependencies?
I'm completely ignorant as to what happens when a package is
imported in some way for installation to a non-RPM system.
Are the same sorts of dependencies maintained when a tool like
alien (isn't that what Debian calls it?) is used?
I realize that the above is just a comment, not spec wording,
so I'm not criticising, but we have to continue to be careful
not to imply that it's an rpm-based world, much though it would
make our lives easier if there were a single common packaging system.
In Re: the suggestion of a warning, did a bug need to be filed
to track this to some agreement on the proper behavior?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: