Fixes: #2611
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2772
-- Commit Summary --
* Extend test README
-- File Changes --
M tests/README.md (141)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/
@dmnks pushed 1 commit.
4649c91b5c7468450217e1c776e4e873edde1039 Extend test README
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2772/files/bf6d35297171b73d5361aa97086e5c6436a57805..4649c91b5c7468450217e1c776e4e873edde1039
You are receiving this because you are subs
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
make check
-The number of tests performed depends on features enabled at configure time,
-at least `--with-`/`--without-lua` and `--enable-`/`--disable-python`.
-See also the [INSTALL](../INSTALL) file for more information.
+The number of test
@dmnks pushed 1 commit.
f1e03b50be3ef1dab133929a1f87cab79f593520 Extend test README
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2772/files/4649c91b5c7468450217e1c776e4e873edde1039..f1e03b50be3ef1dab133929a1f87cab79f593520
You are receiving this because you are subs
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
>
make check
-The number of tests performed depends on features enabled at configure time,
-at least `--with-`/`--without-lua` and `--enable-`/`--disable-python`.
-See also the [INSTALL](../INSTALL) file for more information.
+The number of tests p
Merged #2772 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2772#event-11023278759
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #2611 as completed via #2772.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2611#event-11023278992
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
* We don't really need an explicit `RPMDB_INIT`, just merge it into
`RPMTEST_SETUP`.
* Perhaps `RPMTEST_SETUP` isn't very descriptive, choose a better name? Its
purpose is to initialize a writable tree and mount it at `$RPMTEST`
* Drop `run()`, it's not needed anymore (only as part of `rundebug()
> * Perhaps `RPMTEST_SETUP` isn't very descriptive, choose a better name?
> Its purpose is to initialize a writable tree and mount it at `$RPMTEST`
Hmm, actually this is probably a good name after all :smile: It literally says
"setup RPMTEST (directory)"...
--
Reply to this email directly
The problem with RPMTEST_SETUP name is that it relates AT_SETUP when it
doesn't. Especially as we have RPMTEST_CLEANUP which relates to AT_CLEANUP.
Maybe RPMTEST_INIT?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2773#issuecomment-1
Building on the feedback from the #2620 draft, this seems more like it. Now
even with documentation :smile:
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774
-- Commit Summary --
* Add support for retrieving %generate_bu
Yup, good point. It *could* be made into an `AT_SETUP` wrapper and just take
some kind of argument that says "I need write access to `/`" but that would
require a *lot* of (even if automated) search & replace across all the test
files...
In any case, `RPMTEST_INIT` works for me.
--
Reply to t
The above specification is now implemented in #2774, more or less.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1087#issuecomment-1820808980
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
After it's renamed, it may not be a bad idea to actually add RPMTEST_SETUP that
does, for now, nothing more than wrap AT_SETUP. Just to make the whole thing
more consistent.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2773#issuecom
OK, I've updated the description accordingly, thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2773#issuecomment-1820825818
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
These came up in a discussion about the test-suite related to #2611:
* [ ] Rename the `rpm` image to something less ambiguous (and not conflicting
with our earlier Autotools-based CI setup which used the same name)
* [ ] Instead of `--privileged`, use only the specific capabilities required
(see:
@voxik commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1352,5 +1352,16 @@ end
end
}
+# buildsystem defaults
+%buildsystem_default_prep() %autosetup -p1
I don't see this to be documented. Is it something one should use for something?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://
@voxik commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1352,5 +1352,16 @@ end
end
}
+# buildsystem defaults
+%buildsystem_default_prep() %autosetup -p1
+
+# example buildsystem macros for autotools
Is autotools really so prominent to be part of defaults?
--
Reply to this email directly or view
And in relation to #782, is it possible to define the 'buildsystem' inside of
the .spec file?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#issuecomment-1821074359
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> And in relation to #782, is it possible to define the 'buildsystem' inside of
> the .spec file?
Although admittedly, not sure what would be the utility 🤔
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#issuecomment-1821076512
You
There's also another BZ report of the same (including a reproducer which is
almost identical to the one above):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835424
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1458#issuecomment-18210
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1352,5 +1352,16 @@ end
end
}
+# buildsystem defaults
+%buildsystem_default_prep() %autosetup -p1
Right, I'll need to document it. %buildsystem_default_* is just something a
spec using Buildsystem: will fall back to if the buildsystem does
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1352,5 +1352,16 @@ end
end
}
+# buildsystem defaults
+%buildsystem_default_prep() %autosetup -p1
+
+# example buildsystem macros for autotools
"Defaults" seems ambiguous in this context of %buildsystem_default_*. But
assuming you mean whe
At least for now, these are just macros that can be defined anywhere. But I do
fail to see the point of a spec defined buildsystem.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#issuecomment-1822232591
You are receiving this becaus
24 matches
Mail list logo
