Victor Martinez wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:15:26 +0200 Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
Hey Johannes,
Hi Jose,
Thanks for your posting. I have a couple of comments and questions:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 21:41:31 +0200, Jose V Beneyto wrote:
Hi people,
As surely someone has known, pitillo and me are involved on developing a safe environment where test crux ports.
Apparently, ATM don't exist a unified way for testing/developing ports.
Well, there's the chroot testing procedure which is described on http://crux.nu/Main/ChrootTesting
In addition to ChrootTesting, one of the more interesting features could be that safe-env can automatize the whole process for creating a chroot testing environment, and its easy to add more useful tools/files/features/ports/etc inside the environment and keep then automated process. Also you can have more than one environment (just you need a filesystem image) given the possibility to people of having more than one chroot environment depending on your requeriments. Personally, I'm working with 2 images: crux-devel-2.4 for develeping my own ports on a fresh environment, and crux-test-2.4 for auto-testing with my own scripts and tools inside the image.
like we talk at irc channel, is this a general/unified/standard way for packagers/maintainers to build ports?. If its objective is this, I think some maintainers don't know about this procedure and like we talk yesterday,
Well, also would be nice if PackageGuidelines has a little mention to ChrootTesting.
IMHO if this is intended to be the way to go, someone must check the process. I told this and I repeat here again, is it really needed to start from a core/opt installation?, doesn't has much sense to start only with core and then build ports with the minimal/real dependencies instead of using all opt ports?
yeah, I agree, +1 for core installations. Just we are trying to find a better platform for the community. I think there are a lot of different ways of doing the same, and would be nice if we pickup the best part from each method/maintainer/packager/etc and try to unify it for the common use. As I knwon nipuL, Romster and could be others have their own environments, and would be nice if we merge all common uses. ATM I've no personal interest on develop more fstypes support for safe-env images, it could be easily added in the future without problems, and I would be glad to take part in this case.
I've quickly tested this for a 2.4 test ISO, and with an additional mount for /sys it works fairly well.
I started some time ago from this page/notes to build a little script with this steps to keep ports up to date with their minimal dependencies.
Also, are there any automated checks to see if a package installation misbehaved, especially directory permission checks? Also, what about post-installs scripts? I think especially the later might be something interesting to look into!
This can be a start point. I had in mind to use safe-env and make it bigger with some set of tests to make more checks to a port. This is one of the reasons we show you this enviroment, to see if it can be interesting to the comunity and may be someone can add, bit by bit, more attibutes to it.
As I wrote, being minimal it can be flexible and we can give it more uses giving freedom to respect people's customs or preferences. But, of course, it can be modify according to our requeriments, finding the better way.
In any case, maybe we can define some criteria for ports testing, i.e. which ports should be there to start with, always rebuilding vs. keeping packages etc.
yeah, nice point for future discussions, also on our safe-env we are using 'prt-clean' for keeping some built packages until you decide to clean them. Also I've updated the last release after fixed some issues. Thanks Romster. :) http://mikeux.dyndns.org/crux/distfiles/safe-env-0.1-svn164.tar.bz2
Thanks for the clarifications, Johannes
Thank you too for your time spent reading this mails and the enviroment.
Thanks too, and best regards, Jose V Beneyto