John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Followups to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Compatiblitiy is less trivial than you might belive but without conformance
> > tests, we cannot claim anything about compatibility
>
> > ...
>
> >
> > A distro alone cannot be a refernce. It must not even be changed for
> > the compatibility tests.
>
> One of my comments on the wiki definition was along the lines of:
>
> We could, as a starting place for defining compatibility,
> simply assert that there is a baseline (installer and
> a set of versioned packages; a "recipe", if you will)
> that must exist in any distro if it wants to claim
> compatibility.
If there are several levels, e.g.:
- Plain ON
- ON + X
- ON + GNUME
it would allow to create application classes and to predict whether an
application should run.
If somebody e.g. includes add-ons in his libc, this does not help.
This explains how hard it is to create a compliance test. Unless you know
what odd interface you need to look for, you may only realize that a program
compiled on 'A OpenSolaris' will not run on 'B OpenSolaris'.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
