Re: package testing, autopkgtest, and all that
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:28:14PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As for "also" running tests which are "not part of a source package",
> it is very easy to wrap up some tests in a dedicated source package if
> that's desirable. The source package is then just a convenient
> container format. There is no requirement in autopkgtest that the
> source package containing tests generates any binary packages at all,
> let alone that it generates the particular things being tested.
I wonder how that would look in detail. For software in "our" field we
also need to deal with test suites that upstream intents to be ran by
users, that comes as a separate download with substantial size. Would I
have to wrap them into a source package that builds no binary packages?
Is that possible with the current infrastructure at all?
> > Let's see first if we have all the arguments on the table already,
> > thanks to this thread. I'm willing to co-drive a DEP to finalize the
> > spec, although I definitely need helping hands (hint, hint!).
> One point I would like to make is that people who are now raising
> objections to fundamental design decisions are, I think, five and a
> half years too late.
> The design, both in principle and detail, was discussed in November
> 2005 on various Debian lists. Amongst other people, you, Stefano,
> participated. In February 2006 I reported that I had an initial
> I don't think going back the drawing board now is a very good idea.
> What we are lacking is deployment (and, sorry for my part in the lack
> of that).
I don't necessarily take the point of being 5 years too late. If
everything was optimal and decided 5 years ago, why is nobody using this
system? Having all the other testing approaches around clearly indicates
that there is demand...