Gerhard Tonn writes...
> I have put first results to http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb_results/ .
> They are based on running woody with a 2.4.19 kernel and patched glibc
> and pax from the repository at http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb/ .
Thanks! I have added this info to the webpage at,
http
Hi debian-lsb,
The LSB Specification Authority group met today and they reviewed a couple of
the Problem Reports I had filed and gave responses.
PR#0038 http://tracking.opengroup.org/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0038
This was for the "/tset/LSB.fhs/root/bin/bin-tc 49" failure. They agreed it
was a Te
The LSB Specification Authority group met today and they reviewed a couple of
the Problem Reports I had filed and gave responses.
PR#0037 http://tracking.opengroup.org/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0037
This was the one for commands(coreutils,diff,cpio) multibyte support. They
issued an "Interpretation
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't had a chance to figure this out yet, but I thought it prudent
> to report.
Grep the list archives for _POSIX2_VERSION ...
--
James
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 22:27, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 06:35, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > First tjreport for a testing/unstable hybrid running with kernel
> > 2.6.0-test5 on a TiBook IV is up at
> > http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/lsb/tjreport-powerpc-20031002 .
> > Doesn't lo
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 12:11, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This is the default behaviour with newer coreutils
> when _POSIX_VERSION 200112L is set in /usr/include/unistd.h.
> The latter is the case with newer glibcs.
This appears to be the problem. I've written an additional patch, which
is in the same
Hi,
On Mit, Okt 08, 2003 at 09:54:19 -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> > I haven't had a chance to figure this out yet, but I thought
> > it prudent to report.
> >
> > I've been testing sarge with the i18n patch to coreutils 4.5.9
> > forward-ported to 5.0 and applied against coreutils 5.0-5.
>
> I haven't had a chance to figure this out yet, but I thought
> it prudent to report.
>
> I've been testing sarge with the i18n patch to coreutils 4.5.9
> forward-ported to 5.0 and applied against coreutils 5.0-5.
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ head -1 /etc/profile
head: `-1' option is obsolete; u
I haven't had a chance to figure this out yet, but I thought it prudent
to report.
I've been testing sarge with the i18n patch to coreutils 4.5.9
forward-ported to 5.0 and applied against coreutils 5.0-5. You can see
my patch at:
http://hackers.progeny.com/~licquia/lsb/patches/sarge/coreutils_
> I have put first results to
> http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb_results/ .
> They are based on running woody with a 2.4.19 kernel and
> patched glibc
> and pax from the repository at
> http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb/ . I am
> wondering where all
> the LI18NUX2K.L1/base failures come fro
At 2003/10/8 10:41+0200 Gerhard Tonn writes:
> I have put first results to http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb_results/ .
> They are based on running woody with a 2.4.19 kernel and patched glibc
> and pax from the repository at http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb/ . I am
> wondering where all the LI1
Hi,
run-parts ignores per default files which contain a dot ('.') such as
'script.dpkg-old' or 'mycompany.com-cronscript'.
Since the latter is a valid LSB name, debutil's run-parts supports now
--lsbsysinit
The problem is that the default /etc/crontab doesn't use --lsbsysinit.
I therefore fil
I have put first results to http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb_results/ .
They are based on running woody with a 2.4.19 kernel and patched glibc
and pax from the repository at http://people.debian.org/~gt/lsb/ . I am
wondering where all the LI18NUX2K.L1/base failures come from. Since
there aren't
13 matches
Mail list logo
