Hey Lucas, First of all, thanks for reply it, I'm glad to known your point of view Lucas Hazel wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:41:31 +0200 Jose V Beneyto <sepen@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Apparently, ATM don't exist a unified way for testing/developing ports. As we known, developers are using prtutils, chroot environments or unfortunately other are using their own crux system for building and testing their ports, and that sounds terrible in some cases.
I don't really see a present need to "unify" the testing/development process. CRUX has a set of guidelines that ports should adhere to and at the end of the day, this is all that is really important. How you get there is the least important thing.
Maybe, but the fact is that the number of tickets in FS have increased a lot thanks to pitillo who is using safe-env. That could be due to their easy automation.
I agree that a clean build environment is an important tool in the port development process. The only advantage I see to such projects is that they automate some of the tedious groundwork required in creating such an environment. Once that groundwork has been laid out, then what?
At least, the same than ChrootTesting, but using filesystem images instead of directories. Also you can manipulate more than one environment (depending on your requeriments) without the need of repeating all steps for getting it running. Imho this is not a disadvantage.
Chroot environments are great for testing the build process and eliminating soft dependencies that can show up as part of the library detection that some configure scripts employ, however, this is only one aspect of testing.
I think package database snapshots are a good idea. I've been using such a tool myself for a long time now. I'm not sure if I ever announced it on the ML, but many people here would already aware of it's existence.
Yeah, I like your port-snapshot idea.
Anyway, I digress. My point is I don't think there is a need to unify these processes. I happen to like the freestyle nature of CRUX users, we all think differently, have different goals, approaches, methods and an almost complete lack of hierarchy (excluding a very small core team). Yet we still manage to produce one of the finest Linux distributions available.
Maybe 'unify' is a wrong word for explain my idea, 'merge' would be better. Well, as I wrote in my first mail; we are tried to keep the environment as simple as possible (KISS), giving freedom to respect people's customs or preferences, approaches, methods, etc, but having the security of a **minimal** and secure environment, that don't spend you a lot of time for getting it running.
While I think it's great we share ideas on port development and maintenance techniques, at the end of the day ports either meet the requirements of CRUX or they don't.
It's my belief that if we all thought and did things the same way more bugs would appear than got fixed.
"Over-specialize and you breed in weakness....It's slow death"
Thanks for expose your point of view and ideas, that is what I was expecting, a poll on user's opinions. Best regards, Jose V Beneyto