[lsb-discuss] Moving Qt4 to required for LSB 3.2

Banginwar, Rajesh rajesh.banginwar at intel.com
Mon Apr 23 09:42:53 PDT 2007

>-----Original Message-----
>From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org 
>[mailto:lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org] On Behalf 
>Of Aaron J. Seigo
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:22 AM
>To: lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
>Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] Moving Qt4 to required for LSB 3.2
>On Friday 20 April 2007, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote:
>> Have we received further tests from Trolltech or someone to 
>cover many
>> of the Qt4 classes? I think without adequate coverage we 
>should not add
>> any new module in LSB.
>as Jesper noted, more tests are on the way. however, if you 
>are able to 
>specify what level of testing would make you comfortable with 
>things then 
>that would likely help ensure movement towards meeting expectations.

How about the criteria we used when GTK was added in LSB 3.1? We looked
at a lot of OSS GTK applications (I think about 50) and found out which
interfaces are used most (if I recall correctly, if an interface is used
for at least once or twice we ended up including it in this list). Then
targetted to cover at least 80% of those interfaces. Each inteterface
from that target list was then thouroughly tested (not just one test per
interface). I think if we use the same criteria for QT4 it would be more
than sufficient. 

>afaik, test coverage is anything but 100% for the LSB as a whole. this 
>shouldn't be reinforced by adding further gaps, of course, but 
>IMHO as long 
>as there is forward momentum and demonstrated commitment it 
>shouldn't be a 
>show stopper given that allowing it to be so in this case would have 
>substantial adverse effects on ISVs relying on Qt4 with regard 
>to being able 
>to target the LSB as a meaningful entity.

Exactly. We try not to repeat the mistakes made in the past :-) All new
libraries starting from LSB 3.1 have test coverage, except for Qt3 (and
libjpeg I think). We never received enough test coverage for Qt3 and I
would like us to avoid that mistake for Qt4 if possible.



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list