Re: a couple of questions on LSB compliance

[Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org>]

Dan
Many thanks.Comments are below:


On Dec 7, 11:48am in "Re: a couple of ques", Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Andrew Josey <ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org> writes:
>
> > 1. The FHS has conditions "If the X Window System is present". Does
> > the LSB mandate presence of the window system (i.e. the support
> > files /usr/X11R6 etc)?
>
> X11R6 will be a required part of a fully LSB compliant system.
>
Ok, so any tests related to the X Window System whilst possibly optional
for FHS conformance will be mandatory for LSB conformance.

> > 2. The FHS has conditions "dependent on the version of the X Window
> > System supported". Does the LSB mandate the version of the X Window System
,
> > that is X11R6 ?
>
> Yes.  I just talked to Dirk Hondel (of XFree86) about some of the X11R6
> stuff in FHS and LSB.  We may be making some minor clarifications to the
> standard on questions like this that aren't fully addressed in FHS 2.0.
>
Ok. Also once we have some tests that may help to flush out some issues
with the specs.

> > 3. The FHS talks about presence of directories. Does the LSB
> > require that the mandatory directories be actual directories, or
> > are symlinks be allowed?
>
> The current specification does not directly answer this question.  A
> future version will be more specific about this.  There may be some
> cases where it is not allowed.  There will be cases where it is allowed.
>
Should the test suite draw the attention of the user to any symlinks
by issuing warnings (not fail results) - or should we just allow either
for now - I suspect the latter would be preferrred.

> > 4. The FHS does not specify directory permissions for the mandatory
> > file hierarchy. Does the LSB demand any particular directory
> > permissions or should that be left unspecified (i.e that the
> > directories be searchable only)?
>
> Permissions are unspecified by FHS at this time.  Requiring
> searchability would be an LSB extension of FHS, but is probably
> reasonable for most directories.

We'll leave permissions unspecified, but test for searchability. This
may throw up some issues but hopefully they can be identified and
resolved during a beta test cycle.
regards
Andrew