[lsb-discuss] waivers of the runtime test

Andrew Josey ajosey at rdg.opengroup.org
Sun Jul 30 23:12:17 PDT 2006


You can raise a problem report at:
http://www.freestandards.org/cert/prsubmit.php

Note that you need to have registered a company first to do that.

You'll need to explain in the problem report why you think this should
be granted. The tests are for specific statements in the FHS that
require the utilities to be provided as hard or symlinks to their
counterparts, so you should explain why that requirement should be
waived.
regards
Andrew

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 13:45 +0800, 李青梅 wrote:
> I have run lsb runtime test on ubuntu,now there are two failures as
> this:
> /tset/LSB.fhs/root/bin/bin-tc 47 FAIL
> /tset/LSB.fhs/root/bin/bin-tc 48 FAIL
> 
> and the journal is :
> 
> 10|707 /tset/LSB.fhs/root/bin/bin-tc 13:32:24|TC Start, scenario ref
> 712-0
> 15|707 3.7 52|TCM Start
> 
> ......
> 
> 400|707 47 1 13:32:44|IC Start
> 200|707 47 13:32:44|TP Start
> 520|707 47 30409 1 1|Reference 3.4-47 (A)
> 520|707 47 30409 1 2|The gunzip utility shall be a hard link or
> symlink to the gzip utility
> 520|707 47 30409 1 3|The gunzip utility is not a hard link to gzip
> 520|707 47 30409 1 4|exit code 1 returned, expected 0
> 520|707 47 30409 1 5|Unexpected output written to stdout, as shown
> below:
> 520|707 47 30409 1 6|stdout:/bin/gunzip expected to be  symlink
> to /bin/gzip, returned non-symlink
> 220|707 47 1 13:32:44|FAIL
> 410|707 47 1 13:32:44|IC End
> 400|707 48 1 13:32:44|IC Start
> 200|707 48 13:32:44|TP Start
> 520|707 48 30409 1 1|Reference 3.4-48 (A)
> 520|707 48 30409 1 2|The zcat utility shall be a hard link or symlink
> to the gzip utility
> 520|707 48 30409 1 3|The zcat utility is not a hard link to gzip
> 520|707 48 30409 1 4|exit code 1 returned, expected 0
> 520|707 48 30409 1 5|Unexpected output written to stdout, as shown
> below:
> 520|707 48 30409 1 6|stdout:/bin/zcat expected to be  symlink
> to /bin/gzip, returned non-symlink
> 220|707 48 1 13:32:45|FAIL
> 410|707 48 1 13:32:45|IC End
> 
> can we put this to waivers?
> 
> 





More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list