On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:40:17PM +0000, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As some of you know, I've had a *lot* of problems with pacman over the past > few days, because Arch broke it, and then we synchronized with upstream. I > strongly recommend that in future, test *all* of Arch's code before even > pushing it in darcs. By this, I don't just mean pactest, I mean test it for > normal use on an installed system, be it a virtual machine, a chroot, or > your main system. But I really would like to make sure that we don't *ever* > have any system-wrecking problems in Pacman again
i think pactest is a great tool, just we would need more tests. unfortunatelly it's written in python, so i can't add tests, but who know python, here are 5 items lacking of any test: - if foo is installed, and has an install script, a /var/lib/pacman/local/foo-ver-rel/install file must exist - if foo is installed, and has a changelog, a /var/lib/pacman/local/foo-ver-rel/changelog file must exist - after a -Sy all dirs under /var/lib/pacman/reponame should look like name-ver-rel (so something like name or name-ver is not allowed) - after a package is installed, the dirs under /var/lib/pacman/local should look like name-ver-rel (so something like name or name-ver is not allowed) - if there is a "touch /tmp/foo" or "touch tmp/foo" in an install scriptlet, both should create a file under $root/tmp/foo (in case you use -r) and not in /tmp these issues are not fixed, but there are no tests for them you can read about pactest in /usr/share/doc/pacman*/HACKING all you need is a little python knowledge, and there are 70 "example" already, so it really should be hard to write such tests what i can promise is to run pactest before any release, i can't say i'll check these issues manually udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
