[Accessibility] [lsb-discuss] LibToLSB

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Wed May 2 12:18:16 PDT 2007

lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org wrote:
> I have read the LibToLSB documentation.  The ABI specification section
> was well written and very informative.  It answered most all of my
> questions. 
> http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LibToLSB
> Here are a few questions:
> 1) Regarding requirement #4, what is the current required test code
> coverage (eg., 1%, 10%, 50%, 99%)?  I would think at least 1% is
> required to setup a template / place holder.
> 2) The conformance test case example demonstrates writing
> TETware-lite instrumented tests; however, 
> 2a) requirement for test assertion documentation?
> 2b) test assertion review process?
> 2c) test code review/approval process?
> 2d) test BZR commit process?
> 2e) test build process?
> 2f) test builds per platform?

Although we didn't make a conscious decision on this when
Stew started on the document, your question has highlighted
that the document is mainly on process, and there are
quite a few policy questions that need an answer somewhere.

There's no absolute answer to #1, obviously: we'd like
the best coverage possible, we'd settle for a reasonably
made case that the coverage handles the most important

Nor have we been able - though we'd very much like to -
enforce any rules on 2a, 2b, 2c.  When you're dealing
with contributions, it seems like you have to take
what you can get - well, you've been here, you know.

2d - 2f are back to process and we can document those.

More information about the Accessibility mailing list