On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:57:38PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 09:54 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:24:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:08 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> %check is a toy, but because it's there we
> don't work on a test setup that's any good.
Heh. Different perspectives, I suppose, but all I seem to see at the
moment is people working on test setups all over the place. Fedora QA is
working
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 23:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> And FWIW no, I dont follow the "there are some packages with incorrect
> URL, thus the field must be useless and should be removed" logic here.
Just to puree the horse further: I never said that.
I do believe that the most valuable UR
On 02/28/2014 09:54 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:24:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks like it
can be removed from the spec file (and RPM
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:54 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:24:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks
> > > like it
> > > can b
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:24:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks
> > like it
> > can be removed from the spec file (and RPM for that matter)!
>
> No, plea
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks like
> it
> can be removed from the spec file (and RPM for that matter)!
No, please. It could be made *optional*. But there are certainly cases
where the upstre
t: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:56:43 PM
> Subject: Re: How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
>
> На 27.02.2014 21:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov написа:
> > I have similar feelings as ajax. It's not whether it's useless of treasure.
> > If someone says "g
На 27.02.2014 21:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov написа:
I have similar feelings as ajax. It's not whether it's useless of treasure. If someone
says "give me commit rights as I want to make tests build|fix url|fix
formatting|improve BRs|etc. in package A you're maintainer" I would be more than
happy t
On 27.02.2014 20:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I have similar feelings as ajax. It's not whether it's useless of treasure.
> If someone says "give me commit rights as I want to make tests build|fix
> url|fix formatting|improve BRs|etc. in package A you're maintainer" I would
> be more than h
- Original Message -
> From: "poma"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:57:34 PM
> Subject: Re: How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
>
> On 27.02.2014 18:46, Adam
On 27.02.2014 18:46, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:50 +0100, poma wrote:
>> On 27.02.2014 17:24, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> ...
Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libpciaccess/
>
> Oh yes, another useless rpm feature, I'll be sure to make that my top
> priority.
sneer at it if you wish, but this is a feature of RPM
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:50 +0100, poma wrote:
> On 27.02.2014 17:24, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> ...
> >> Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to
> >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libpciaccess/
> >
> > Oh yes, anoth
On 27.02.2014 17:24, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
...
>> Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libpciaccess/
>
> Oh yes, another useless rpm feature, I'll be sure to make that my top
> pr
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Adam,
> just for completeness - libpciaccess doesn't seem to have a test suite. Do
> you
> mean to exclude it from the effort of creating one as well, or only exclude
> reports for missing %check?
The latter.
> Btw the URL field in
На 26.02.2014 17:19, Adam Jackson написа:
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 09:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Except the kernel. Please exclude it from all of this.
Also: xorg-x11-server, xorg-x11-drv-*, libdrm, libpciaccess, mesa. Any
reasonable amount of testing on those is going to require more hardwar
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 09:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Except the kernel. Please exclude it from all of this.
Also: xorg-x11-server, xorg-x11-drv-*, libdrm, libpciaccess, mesa. Any
reasonable amount of testing on those is going to require more hardware
access than is feasible at rpmbuild time.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:54 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> I've started working to identify packages with missing upstream test suites
>> or
>> not running the tests in %check. Having a list of hundreds of packages now I
>>
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:54 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I've started working to identify packages with missing upstream test suites
> or
> not running the tests in %check. Having a list of hundreds of packages now I
> need to prioritize them somehow. This will help in later step
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:54:42 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I've started working to identify packages with missing upstream test suites
You will need to have a clear idea about _what to test_ in a test-suite
(and how to implement it). Else it would be a waste of time to even think
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:13:25 PM
> Subject: Re: How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
>
> - Or
- Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Todorov"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:54:42 PM
> Subject: How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
>
> Hi guys,
> I&
Hi guys,
I've started working to identify packages with missing upstream test suites or
not running the tests in %check. Having a list of hundreds of packages now I
need to prioritize them somehow. This will help in later steps when spec files
need to be fixed or somebody wants to start working
24 matches
Mail list logo
