[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-01-16
jeff at licquia.org
Wed Jan 16 11:57:04 PST 2008
Attendees: Jeff, Dan Kohn, Sam Hart, Stew, Darren Davis, Marc Miller,
Mats, Robert Schweikert, Marvin, George Kraft, Kay Tate, Ted Ts'o,
LSB 3.2. Intro. Sam: lots of info is redundant with data in the
autotester. Some tests are difficult to determine what failing tests
are doing. Will be posting info on IRC. Stew: whittled down Perl
issues, about half-a-dozen left. Sam: on TestPilot32? Stew: no.
Autotest results are on http://www.linux-foundation.org/lsbtest/.
Robert: shouldn't the deps be in the LSB? Jeff: new stuff for 3.2 isn't
in the lsb dependencies yet. Stew: also, need more than the LSB to test
the LSB. Jeff: timeframe? Sam: weeks with the current TestPilot32
data; maybe should cap or focus on the autotester. Maybe a few days if
we limit to failures on several distros. Stew: freedesktop may also be
an issue. Don't normally run because of the interaction issue. Jeff:
need to make sure they don't get dropped; need to be mentioned in DTK
Jeff: any bugs we know about that are serious/difficult? Stew: doesn't
look like it. Core is looking a lot better. Stew: pushed that change,
seems like the long double problems are behind us.
Ted: why are we just finding these now? Jeff: lots of data, getting to
the rest of the data. Stew: also, not doing wide testing until
recently. Ted: need to make sure we don't do this in the future. Mats:
the steps have been taken, but too late to help. Ted: wiki for the
autotester? Sam: part of the problem is that things were finished
during the holidays.
Ted: so keep working and discuss on the bug call? Are we sure we can
get this data evaluated by then? Sam: the majority of the multi-distro
issues, yes. Ted: documenting
Mats: spec is basically ready, except for a C++ question. Building;
C++ issue. Ted: will this cause us issues? Jeff: don't think so.
Alexey: suitable to postpone the spec part. Only concern: getting it
evaluated immediately after 3.2.
Sam: 3.2 sample implementation. Lots of work to do; will that be a drag
on resources for 4.0? Ted: what issues? Sam: new libraries, build
quirks. Link on status page. Lots of little issues to overcome. Kay:
need to clean up for 4.0? Ted: yes, assumed that the 3.2 SI wasn't too
bad, but perhaps that wasn't the case. Sam: also, more useful; virtual
machines. Current SI is mostly unmaintained. Concern is to take time
away from 4.0. Ted: first step is tarball chroot, next step is making
it more useful in other ways (UML, virtual, etc.). Can we compile it
once? Sam: multiple archs is also an issue. Also, some LFS changes are
biting us. Ted: can we scale back the SI; archs? Sam: maybe rejigger
the 3.1 SI. Kay: the SI is required for certification. Ted: need to
figure out what is required. Sam: can't even build 3.1; once that's
done, shouldn't take more than a month after building 3.1. Need to try
on an older distro. Stew: builds on SLES 10. Sam: will try that.
More information about the lsb-discuss