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.) (/me nods) > > 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 include syntax). 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 :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature