Mats I expect there was a change in 2.2. So far no one has reported the problem- many must use hardlinks.
If it affects LSB certification please file a bug report to http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/PR I'll correct the error message in the source tree, and look to fix up the tests to allow symlinks. thanks Andrew On Jul 11, 7:38am in "testing gzip (was: ", Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > > 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 >-- End of excerpt from Wichmann, Mats D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
