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

Steve Goetze goetze at dovetail.com
Tue Apr 14 04:39:43 PDT 2009


It appears that "3.0" is not recognized, but "3.1" is:

lsbuser at etpglrn:/usr/src/packages/SPECS> export LSBCC_LSBVERSION=3.0
lsbuser at etpglrn:/usr/src/packages/SPECS> /opt/lsb/bin/lsbc++
LSBCC_LSBVERSION is set to unrecognized value 3.0
lsbc++: no input files

lsbuser at etpglrn:/usr/src/packages/SPECS> export LSBCC_LSBVERSION=3.1
lsbuser at etpglrn:/usr/src/packages/SPECS> /opt/lsb/bin/lsbc++
lsbc++: no input files


On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Denis Silakov <silakov at ispras.ru> wrote:
> Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> Jeff Licquia wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:08:34PM -0400, Stew Benedict wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Licquia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead and send directly to me; I doubt the list needs to see it.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is "30" the correct string? Man page and --lsb-version seems to
>>>> imply "3.0"
>>>>
>>> I think this may be what's going on.  I've received the results
>>> off-list from Steve, and the errors are consistent with having built
>>> for LSB 4.0 and tested for LSB 3.0.
>>>
>>
>> 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?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Denis.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
>


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list