Debian Bug Tracking System | 16 May 17:48 2002
Picon

Processed: A special good tool

Processing commands for control <at> bugs.debian.org:

> <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY>
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> <FONT>Hi,This is a special  good tool<br>
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> I wish you would like it.</FONT></BODY></HTML>
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> --Mw3K5P89f4X9v2G5X2U7TI62034S3410023
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

George Kraft IV | 30 May 20:11 2002
Picon

SI packages

Looking at the LSB-SI packages, I've noticed that some packages are what I would
consider "extra" beyond what the LSB specifies and others are "omit" in the
LSB-SI that are required by the LSB.  Could someone verify my observation?

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lsb/src/si/entities/

George (gk4)

at 
bash 
bc 
bin86 SI-Extra
binutils 
bison SI-Extra
bzip2 SI-Extra
cpio 
cron SI-Extra
db SI-Extra
diffutils 
dummy SI-Extra
ed SI-Extra
file 
fileutils 
findutils 
flex SI-Extra
gawk SI-Omit
mawk SI-Extra
gcc SI-Extra
gettext SI-Extra
glibc 
(Continue reading)

George Kraft IV | 30 May 20:48 2002
Picon

Re: SI packages

> Just because they are listed in that file doesn't mean they are actually
> used in the rest of the .xml files. A big grep would be needed to determine
> which ones are actually used.

I assumed that anything labled "package" in the LSB-SI's "packages" file was to
be included in the LSB-SI bundle.  So, then are those "extra" packages
superfluous garbage that can be edited out of the LSB-SI "packages" file?

George (gk4)

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

anderson | 30 May 21:08 2002

Re: SI packages

On Thu, 30 May 2002, George Kraft IV wrote:

> I assumed that anything labled "package" in the LSB-SI's "packages" file was to
> be included in the LSB-SI bundle.  So, then are those "extra" packages
> superfluous garbage that can be edited out of the LSB-SI "packages" file?

That is correct. That file has evolved from it's origins in the LFS and
the set of "packages" used has changed as the LSB-SI was being developed.
A cleanup of the unused packages would be a good thing to do in the near
future.

                                Stuart

anderson <at> metrolink.com                         anderson <at> freestandards.org
Metro Link, Inc.                               Free Standards Group
                                               Linux Standards Base

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

Sean 'Shaleh' Perry | 30 May 21:51 2002
Picon

re: SI packages

<I had to cut and paste this from the archives, so forgive the lack of proper
threading or attributio>

>Looking at the LSB-SI packages, I've noticed that some packages are what I
>would consider "extra" beyond what the LSB specifies and others are "omit" in
>the LSB-SI that are required by the LSB.  Could someone verify my observation?

>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lsb/src/si/entities/

>George (gk4)

at 
bash 
bc 
bin86 SI-Extra // needed to compile the kernel which the test suite wants
binutils 
bison SI-Extra // used to compile other parts of this suite
bzip2 SI-Extra // the LFS stores all of the software in bz2 not gz so i need
               // this to build any of it.  I could revert to .gz from upstream
cpio 
cron SI-Extra  // required by LSB
db SI-Extra    // required by rpm
diffutils 
dummy SI-Extra // this is a fake MTA to allow cron to exist and comply with the
               // /usr/sbin/sendmail requirement
ed SI-Extra    // test suite complains when not included
file 
fileutils 
findutils 
flex SI-Extra  // used during compilation
(Continue reading)

George Kraft IV | 30 May 22:58 2002
Picon

Re: SI packages

Sean,

Excellent clarifcation.  It looks like the LSB Test Suite is adding a burden to
the LSB-SI.  We should have the LSB test team take a look at that.

Thanks!

George (gk4)

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

Sean 'Shaleh' Perry | 30 May 23:01 2002
Picon

Re: SI packages


On 30-May-2002 George Kraft IV wrote:
> Sean,
> 
> Excellent clarifcation.  It looks like the LSB Test Suite is adding a burden
> to
> the LSB-SI.  We should have the LSB test team take a look at that.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

The issue is there is no difference (apparently) between something that is
allowed but not required and items that are required in the test suite.  A
failure is a failure.  We can not state "sorry we do not provide functionality
X".

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

Sean 'Shaleh' Perry | 31 May 00:02 2002
Picon

a futher explanation of the package list

So I realized that some people here may not be as familiar with my
implementation as I am, so a further explanation may help.

The si I am working on is built on the Linux From Scratch (LFS) groups work. 
It started with their definition for LFS 3.2 and the nALFS (automated LFS) tool.
From this we created a multi stage build process.

There is a bootstrap which compiles the bare essentials -- glibc, bash,
compiler, a few components -- statically and drops them in a directory.

We then have a phase2 which chroots ito the above directory and begins building
a Linux distribution.  It is mostly the LSB definition of what is required but
because it has to be self hosting there is also the build tools.  This is why
all of the compiler and library packages are there.  It is essentially LSB +
development system and could be used to create LSB compliant packages as a
development platform.  Nice when you can use waste products for something
useful (-:

phase3 is the actual LSB system.  It is built from within the phase2 system and
compiled much like RPM or DEBs are.  We compile them locally and do 'make
install DESTDIR=/path/to/real/location'.  So phase3 is ONLY what the LSB
requires plus any linux requirements.

Hope this helps.

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster <at> lists.linuxbase.org

(Continue reading)

Christopher Yeoh | 31 May 04:39 2002
Picon

Re: SI packages

At 2002/5/30 14:01-0700  Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> 
> The issue is there is no difference (apparently) between something
> that is allowed but not required and items that are required in the
> test suite.  A failure is a failure.  We can not state "sorry we do
> not provide functionality X".

Yes, whilst some of the commands and directories are only required if
"the corresponding subsystem is installed" (which the fhs test suites
handle by the upfront questions) there are many which are required by
the FHS. I believe the intent is to radically reduce the number of
these in the next version of the FHS, leaving a few examples, but
mainly relying on rules to classify where a given binary should live.

This will however make it harder to test (where a binary should live
can depend on the exact functionality offered by that binary) but if
we have been precise enough in the specification of the commands in
the gLSB we can have a LSB specific FHS test suite. And existence of
directories will remain important.

Regards,

Chris
-- 
cyeoh <at> au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-impl-request <at> lists.linuxbase.org
(Continue reading)


Gmane