Re: Checklist request (was: RFC: Deb 2.0 testing process)
>> For example, with the diff package:
>>
>> Package: diff - cmp works on identical and different binary or text
>> files - diff works on files, directories, normal or 2 column -
>> sdiff correctly merges two files - diff3 correctly compares 3 files
"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> It seems a shame to have to ask people to do this sort of thing.
Yes! Maybe even against policy? [Followups on this to debian-policy,
please.]
I applaud the ambitiousness of making test suites for debian core
packages, but I wonder whether Debian developers should focus the
packaging and installation system rather than trying to fix all the
bugs in GNU, etc. In other words, I think the test suite should
focus, at least at the outset, on implementing the policy and making
sure that installation and upgrades go smoothly.
Here's a draft of a checklist geared to that:
* init scripts, if any, comply with debian policy
(probably only 20% do now;)
* package does not modify any files from other packages
* any installation shell scripts work with /bin/sh -> /bin/ash,
or they specifically have #!/bin/bash
* any installation perl scripts work w/ perl 5.003 (?)
* [de]installation script output complies with policy
Another big thing is that the transition from 1.3 to 2.0 is _very_
smooth, which is not the case now. Have we defined the supported
upgrade paths? I know this is all a moving target w/ pkg ordering
stuff apparently coming in and (?) dselect being dropped as the
default installation mechanism.
[BTW, I'm not trying to criticize the current state of hamm, I know
the freeze is a ways off and there's a lot of instability going on.]
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: