Re: lsbpkgchk results for lsb-tet3-lite package

On Jun 7,  9:11am in "RE: [Lsb-test] lsbpk", Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> 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
> 
I think the 386 may be something to do with Rui's build environment.

> 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.
> 
We can comment these in.

I'll file a bug for these two

regards
Andrew