Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian

2001-08-15 Thread Matt Taggart
Matt Taggart writes... > I have been working on comparing the LSB 1.0 specification to Debian > "unstable". I have posted my analysis at, > > http://people.debian.org/~taggart/lsb/ I have updated this page. I made the following changes, - Pointed out that list [8] is "The Debian LSB 1.0 Sampl

Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian

2001-08-03 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 01:56:05AM -0600, Matt Taggart wrote: > I have been working on comparing the LSB 1.0 specification to Debian > "unstable". I have posted my analysis at, BTW, the most significant obstacle to Debian supporting the LSB is that there's no way to see if an implementation actua

Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian

2001-08-03 Thread Andrew Josey
On Aug 3, 2:16am in "Re: LSB 1.0 as it re", Matt Taggart wrote: > > Andrew Josey writes... > > > Many of the test results are FIP result codes, which means that > > Further Information needs to be Provided in order to resolve > > the result. These are not automatically failures. > > But they rend

Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian

2001-08-03 Thread Matt Taggart
Andrew Josey writes... > Many of the test results are FIP result codes, which means that > Further Information needs to be Provided in order to resolve > the result. These are not automatically failures. But they render the test useless right? In most of the FIP cases it was a compiler warning

Re: LSB 1.0 as it relates to Debian

2001-08-03 Thread Andrew Josey
Matt Many of the test results are FIP result codes, which means that Further Information needs to be Provided in order to resolve the result. These are not automatically failures. This typically occurs when the test suite is unable to determine the result for itself, in the FHS some examples of t