On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/22/2014 07:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
And running tests at build time is a kludge anyway building has
nothing to do with testing.
Well, a lot of people will disagree with this claim.
Sure a lot of people disagree
On 02/23/2014 12:14 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/22/2014 07:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
And running tests at build time is a kludge anyway building has
nothing to do with testing.
Well, a lot of people will disagree with this
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/23/2014 12:14 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de
wrote:
On 02/22/2014 07:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
And running tests at build time is a kludge anyway building
On 02/22/2014 07:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
And running tests at build time is a kludge anyway building has
nothing to do with testing.
Well, a lot of people will disagree with this claim.
Testing as part of building (running a package's testsuite) can cover a
lot of cases, but is a subset of
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to
focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or
whoever is willing to step up to this task).
In that case, I suggest simply
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
upstream test suites and how many don't:
of Fedora releases
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite
tracking
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests
On 02/21/2014 05:43 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
On February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM EET, Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com
wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they
13 matches
Mail list logo
