> In the case of the LSB-FHS test suite, the test specification is based > on the FHS 2.0 specification, see www.pathname.com, as modified by the > requirements placed by the LSB specification (for example LSB mandates > presence of the X Window system which is optional in the FHS).
Speaking of LSB-fhs.... As of right now, root/bin/bin-tc (testcases 47/48) test for the existence of two links to gzip, gunzip and zcat. I realize there was some debate about the zcat link in the spec authority meeting yesterday, but disregarding that, the test is requiring both links to be hard links, yet I see no wording anywhere that requires that to be the case, a symlink should also be legal. If the test were to do `ls -Li' instead of `ls -i' in determining the inode number, it would work in either case. Is this a reasonable change? Alternatively, the algorithm used elsewhere (test for symlink, then test for hard link) could also be used. Secondly, the error message in tp47 is wrong, it's testing for gunzip but reports that zcat is not correct...if SF ever answers, I'll file a bug on that one. Mats -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
