On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:58:55 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > Hm. I agree the goal is to get the same list of tests that are run at > build time.
I don't agree 100% I think. From what I've seen so far when looking at a dozen of the failures we have: - same tests in autopkgtest as during build, which fail because of paths or missing files; so just the usual stuff but it appears only now for t/**/*.t; - more tests in autopkgtest than during build but perfectly reasonable tests where it looks more like an issue that they are not run during build (and the typical easy-to-fix-failures); - and then the group where something weird is in t/ which happens to look like a test but is a data file or a (misplaced and not environment-variable-protected) author test etc. Which is somewhat a case for #870252 > Alternatively, if we're running Makefile.PL anyway (I'm ignoring M::B > for the moment), this might all be solved if we could just force run > 'make test' without actually building first. The tests would get run > with blib/lib etc. in @INC but if those were empty the installed files > would presumably get used anyway. Unfortunately make doesn't seem to be > too helpful with this... Hm, we could also "make" the distribution and rm blib/ before "make test". Doesn't feel very clean though ... > One more wild idea I had is to patch the build machinery (probably EU::MM > itself) to record the list of tests it runs in a file. We could then > install that file in the binary package during the build, and look > there in the autopkgtest phase. This does feel somewhat intrusive, > just mentioning it for completeness :) We had similar ideas as well :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature