[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-09-10

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Fri Sep 12 06:35:40 PDT 2008


Attendees: Jeff Licquia, Stew Benedict, Mats Wichmann, Ron Hale-Evans, 
Robert Schweikert, Kay Tate, Jiri Dluhos, Ted Tso

Jeff: Bug meetings have been going well.  Biggest issue is probably the 
pace.

Jeff: best-effort merged.  Mats: broke some things in a more interesting 
way; wrong #define in a header.  Based on needing different defines for 
C and C++.

SI.  Jeff: tested with libchk and cmdchk; sent results to Antonio.

NSS/NSPR.  Ron: narrowed NSPR down to the bare minimum on the list. 
Jeff: is that list in?  Mats: older list in, will probably shrink.  Ron: 
in snapshot?  Jeff: do we have spec for what we are keeping?  Mats: 
there's a pointer to upstream docs; looks like only one case of 
something missing, but need to check more.  If anyone concludes that 
they want to use NSPR (as opposed to being forced to use it), they will 
be disappointed.  Ted: what would people want from NSPR?  Could we 
create a sample app?  Mats: can create sample.  Very difficult to use 
the full lib if we provide a stub.  Robert: if people want more from 
NSPR, they'll complain.  Mats: fine with that.  Ted: could be part of 
LSB 4.1.  Mats: should record in the notes that we should create a 
sample program using NSS, possibly put on LDN.  Ted: pretty obvious 
article for Brian to put up.  Jeff: could get the NSS folks to write the 
article for us.  Ted: that or put the article up.  Ron: what's the 
utility of marking the NSPR interfaces as optional, since we're pointing 
to a spec on the web anyway?  Mats: more specifically, should we just 
leave the things that are in already.  Jeff: each addition reduces our 
test coverage.  We're OK with that if we're adding something people 
want, but need to be more cautious when adding something people don't 
want.  Ted: also, if we weren't past feature freeze, we might be more 
liberal.

Jeff: new tests from ISPRAS for Qt 3, Qt 4, T2C C++ tests.  Mats: have 
to add all those, plus appchk-shell.  Stew: makelsbpkg.  Mats: still 
bugs on building; appchk-shell still expects to connect to the database. 
  Jeff: olver-core-tests still outstanding.  Mats: probably a good idea 
to wait until they're all ready; lots of updates to do, better to do all 
at once.  Will likely have problems with build times.  Jeff: repos now 
generating.  Task packages.  Mats: when you update something built out 
of packaging but lives elsewhere, we often forget to bump the version 
number.  Jeff: won't matter until the beta.  Mats: right; date stamps. 
Perhaps we should pull the package version from the place where the code 
lives.  Jeff: get rid of packaging?  Mats: already done for the big test 
suites; the remaining ones are ones that pull code from multiple places. 
  Maybe a post-4.0 thing.  Jeff: definitely not 4.0.  Mats: would be 
nice to build packages immediately from source after changing.  Jeff: 
task pkgs to own project?  Mats: interesting.  Ted: already going this way.

Jeff: NSS tests?  Stew: in bad shape.  Jeff: OK, shouldn't wait for NSS 
to add them to the autobuilder.  Ted: these are upstream tests?  Stew: 
yes; not exactly done the same way we do tests.  More functional than 
interface tests.

Mats: who will add the new stuff?  Jeff: me and Michael.  Mats: you know 
that arch-independent packages are only built once?  Built on amd64; 
files are different than the others, making this a maintenance headache. 
  Stuff could be driver from the server side; the server could say 
"build this" as opposed to having the autobuilder itself keep track of 
these things.

Ted: bug-fixing activities?  Jeff: summary.  Biggest issue is progress; 
25 out of 200.

Mats: ALSA is still trial-use.  We have to vote on it for each release. 
  Should plan for that to be done.  Robert: ALSA problem is testing. 
Jeff: ALSA issues.  Vote before the RC?  Robert: need time to do the 
change?  Ted: easy.  Mats: prefer to vote before the beta, but 
definitely before the RC.

Jeff: what to do before vote?  ALSA, xdg-utils, Java?  Ron: still 
licensing issues in Java, some minor text issues.  Mats: need to move 
some wording.  Should also do something with xdg-utils.  Need to gather 
information for vote.  Jeff: ALSA: correctness and testing, xdg-utils: 
deployment info.  Ted: for Java, should wait to let some of the legal 
issues percolate.  Robert: agree.  Mats: Sun folks themselves suggested 
that this should be trial-use first time around.  Jeff: new?  Cairo, NSS

Jeff: process?  Ted: don't want to ignite the legal flamewar over Java 
again.  Robert: wording.

Mats: lsb linker version update.  ld-lsb.so.3 -> ld-lsb.so.4.  Less 
reason to do this this time, but should need to discuss it.  Ted: take 
it to the list?  Mats: will post today.



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list