About autopkgtest (Was: Mathicgb)
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:44:36AM -0500, Doug Torrance wrote:
> >BTW, I noticed that you did some patches to get gtest working which is
> >great. I know that gtest is a bit tricky. I also like that you
> >invented some autopkgtest. I wonder whether you see any chance to run
> >the whole set of unittests also in autopkgtest (I have no idea how hard
> >this might be to approach).
>
> Yeah, I followed the advice in [1] and just chose a simple "smoke
> test" as opposed to repeating the upstream tests.
Ahh, interesting. May be I'm responsible for this kind of misuse. I
allways try to repeat the upstream test suite - however, not actually
inside the source tarball. I always try to create an example code /
data set either inside the doc package or a separate examples package
(depending from its size) and run the test suite adapted to this. This
has uncovered some strange things not expected by upstream. Moreover
I do not fully subscribe to the
instead of repeating the upstream test suite (which we already know
that it passed)
quote in[1]. For several packages the test that were running at package
build time several dependencies might have upgraded versions that might
behave differently.
However, I think I can not blame you about following [1] and feel free
to keep on doing tests as recommended there. But I personally will
probably not do as suggested there due to my good experiences in
previous more extensive tests.
> >Additional note: In both packages (mathic and mathicgb) you needed to
> >create the tarball manually since upstream does not add release tags.
> >Did you contacted upstream about this and refer to
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Source_only_tarball
>
> Done.
>
> >Please keep this mailing list in CC if you do so to enable further
> >comments of people reading this list.
>
> D'oh -- I intended to but must not have. That's what I get for
> doing things too late at night.
It should be fine if you might bounce your mail to the list ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/05/msg00004.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: