I fully support your campaign Lars. I've ever been willing to write
automatic tests for a lot of packages of mine. And even a large subset
of them (all OCaml related ones for example) can benefit of the very
same test applied to them. I never added the test simply because there
is no infrastructure for doing it and I'm thus stick to: build the
package -> dpkg -i it -> manually run the test. Surely an error-prone
practice. I would really like to have a standardized way to do tests.
Thanks for your study on this!
> Let's take quality assurance seriously
> ======================================
<snip>
> * Reporting serious problems found by lintian/linda as bugs
> against packages.
Still, I think we should start from simple objectives which can be
easily achieved. The one above qualifies in this set IMO.
I know a lot of lintian warnings/errors about packages of mine are
sitting on lintian.debian.org unaddressed. Had them been reported on the
BTS, I know I would have fixed them. It's stupid, I know, but I've ever
used the BTS to drive my Debian work and I believe a lot of other DDs
are working the same way. Adding a (semi-)automated mechanism for
reporting those warning/errors as bug report would improve packages
quality.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature