Re: Should we have a testing section?
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> >Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> >
> >> Currently we have some programs in the distribution that are only used for
> >> testing things. I plan to add a few more such programs in the near future.
> >
> >Could you elaborate on "testing things", especially "things"? Do you
> >mean whether a certain package works, or whether the package
> >management works, or whether the machine works?
>
> Sorry, my original message wasn't clear enough.
>
> I was referring to software used for performance testing, acceptance testing,
> and functional testing of software or hardware.
>
> Some examples:
> bonnie++
> zcav
> postal
>
> Some potential examples:
> programs to fake X events (useful for debugging)
> programs to act as dummy servers to test client software
>
> Other possibilities:
> netdiag
grunt would be a good candidate; I don't know if anyone has packaged it,
though.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
Reply to: