[lsb-discuss] Building and checking a 3.0 compliant package under the 4.0 SDK

Robert Schweikert rschweikert at novell.com
Tue Apr 14 07:49:10 PDT 2009

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> 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?
IMHO this should be fatal.

> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Software Engineer Consultant                          LINUX
rschweikert at novell.com 

Making IT Work As One

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list