[Accessibility] libatk Test Revised--RE A11y in LSB 3.2

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Wed Mar 28 14:27:17 PDT 2007


George Kraft IV wrote:
>> Stew Benedict writes:
>>> Yes, I tried to reply to the last iteration on this, but was
>>> blocked from the A11y list and a request to subscribe to it also
>>> got queued and never executed on.
> 
> Fixed.  You are on the accessibility list now.   The discussion can
> go back to the list. 

could you stick me on it as well, at least for now, so I can reply
without getting reject messages?

>>> So the failures I was seeing running the test may be due to using
>>> the LSB tet framework, rather than the opengroup's? I was kind of
>>> waiting for feedback on why I was seeing failures.
> 
> There were some Makefile problems and they have been fixed in the new
> tar image. 
> 
>>> 
>>> We (the LSB team, probably me) can certainly do some cleanup of the
>>> Makefiles etc. to integrate this into the desktop test. As I recall
>>> the build requirements were on the heavy side. Is everything needed
>>> to build this part of LSB? (We're trying to get the tests to be
>>> able to build as LSB complaint apps.)
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if it is a Makefile issue or a difference in the
> OpenGroup versus LSB TETware runtimes. 

TOG actually prepared the "lsb-tet3-lite" build and as I tried
to reply earlier, it begins by doing a wget to fetch the upstream
tarball, and the patch they provided is pretty minimal, it's
mainly concerned with fixing up the Python API which had some
bugs in the 3.7 release.

So it would be good to be able to reproduce this difference and
see what it comes from....




More information about the Accessibility mailing list