implicit debian/tests/control files
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:44:56 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I think one way to get that "mass-run" effect without breaking the
> > spec would be to use a different XS-Testsuite: value. How about
> > "autopkgtest-auto-perl"?
> That's a nice idea that resolves my concerns, particularly if it
> gets documented. Antonio's autodep8 makes it even better.
Agreed, this sound nice.
> (I'd sort of prefer 'autopkgtest-pkg-perl', or even 'autopkgtest/pkg-perl'
> for cleaner namespace separation, but I don't really mind.)
> > Whether you want to add the control file is your call of course. As the
> > autopkgtest maintainer I'm pretty much following your needs here (and
> > just moderate a bit to ensure that it doesn't collide with other
> > goals/robustness/etc.).
> I guess with the Testsuite: autopkgtest-auto-perl thing I'd be fine with
> omitting the test control file if it's unmodified from the generic one.
Right, adding "Testsuite: autopkgtest-auto-perl" (or however it will
be called) sounds like a nice option to say "run the default pkg-perl
tests" without having to maintain d/t/control files (or inventing the
The only downside might be that it leaves the burden of maintaining
the test definition to the autopkgtest maintainers on our request;
but if that's ok for you guys, I'm fine with it as well :)
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Bob Dylan: Gotta Serve Somebody
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: Digital Signature