Re: xvfb issue for lsb-vsw4

The use of xfvb is a convenience for those running the tests and not a
key piece of the testing.  You could also run the tests
with a physical display. See later, for this case we may require
use of a physical display as the workaround.

A TSD would imply its a problem with the tests that need fixing.
There are no plans to change the tests, they are testing
key behavior of the X libraries. 

The note on running the tests could be made explicit that you need a
version of xfvb that does not have the bug that removed the backing store.
The alternative would be that we change the tests not to use 
xfvb and folks uses a real physical X display . 

Perhaps for folks encountering this issue we should require  the
workaround be that they
instead run the tests on a physical display to save using a "modified" xvfb.
This should just be minor changes to the setup script and tetexec.cfg
file.

regards
Andrew


On Aug 5,  2:46pm in "Re: [Lsb-test] xvfb ", Lawrence Lim wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> > (2) grant a TSD waiver for these tests, which implies that these
> > tests would be rewritten not to require that the display has backing store.
> 
> I am leaning towards #2. My reasons are as follows:
> 
> 1. IMHO, Test Case should not be testing functionalities that is not
> included in latest upstream stable release.
> 
> 2. In https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2966, it was
> mentioned that the patch for backing store has been committed. However,
> that was in April 2005. The stable release was created in Feb 2005. 
> 
> Hence, I would like to suggest a TSD waiver in this round of testing and
> reimpose the Test Cases after the official release of X with the patch
> included is released.
> 
> 
> Please reconsider.
> 
> 
> Lawrence
> 
> 
>-- End of excerpt from Lawrence Lim