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
I've quickly tested this for a 2.4 test ISO, and with an additional mount for /sys it works fairly well. While this setup may be less powerful, it has served well in the past to test package builds, and I like the fact that it's very transparent, i.e. it's very clear to me what actually happens.
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 guess it could be argued how terrible this is, but okay :-)
For that, we are working on 'safe-env', a environment similar to a "freshinstall", where testing ports and try to discover bugs, and also the most issues that crux users can find when they are building ports for their systems. I think as far as packaging bugs go, using fakeroot should catch most of them already. Functional tests as well as missing dependencies however could be easier to find.
What bugs did you think of here? 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! 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. Thanks for the clarifications, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch