RE: lsbpkgchk results for lsb-tet3-lite package

There are a couple of issues here, neither of them major. 
I'm not sure if we ought to be making them journal file
failures. Stuart, what do you think?

>Incorrect RPMTAG_ARCH: expecting i486 but found i386

The LSB does allow 486-level instructions, and we normally
build packages to the 486 level.  There's recently even
been some comment (from Alan Cox, if I recall - did someone
capture those?) that we ought to lift it a bit higher.

>Didn't see expected dependency lsb-core-ia32: 3.0

We do think this is required.  I see you've commented
it out in your specfile with a note that it often
prevents packages from installing.  It's bit of a pain
for development where we're trying to install in advance
of official distro support (need to either use our
informal lsb-dummy, or install with --nodeps if that
is the case), but it IS something that needs to be in
place for an LSB-conforming package.

-- mats