[lsb-discuss] Building and checking a 3.0 compliant package under the 4.0 SDK
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Tue Apr 14 07:27:43 PDT 2009
Denis Silakov wrote:
>> perhaps the tools should do a little more validation, such as
>> rejecting version options that aren't recognized (or being
>> more broad-minded about what to accept)? Perhaps that's
>> part of the task discussed last week to provide an argument
>> stress-tester for LSB tools.
> Well, lsbcc reports unrecognized values:
> ~$ LSBCC_LSBVERSION=30 /opt/lsb/bin/lsbcc probe.c
> LSBCC_LSBVERSION is set to unrecognized value 30
> But it seems that this short message is not noticeable (especially if
> you have large build log after it), so maybe we should be more strict
> here and fail?
Ugh, I should have checked this before suggesting something that
is already done :)
So - shall we make "unrecognized LSB version" a fatal error,
or leave it as is?
More information about the lsb-discuss