Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: package testing, autopkgtest, and all that"):
> All that considered, I'd like to know the rationale of this initial
> design choice as well. In particular, it would be nice to know if anyone
> see disadvantages in having *also* (rather then "instead") support for
> running tests which are not part of a source package.I hope I have answered the substantive questions in my other recent email. As for "also" running tests which are "not part of a source package", it is very easy to wrap up some tests in a dedicated source package if that's desirable. The source package is then just a convenient container format. There is no requirement in autopkgtest that the source package containing tests generates any binary packages at all, let alone that it generates the particular things being tested. > > So, where do we start/continue sharing the thoughts on a tentative > > DEP? ;) > > Let's see first if we have all the arguments on the table already, > thanks to this thread. I'm willing to co-drive a DEP to finalize the > spec, although I definitely need helping hands (hint, hint!). One point I would like to make is that people who are now raising objections to fundamental design decisions are, I think, five and a half years too late. The design, both in principle and detail, was discussed in November 2005 on various Debian lists. Amongst other people, you, Stefano, participated. In February 2006 I reported that I had an initial implementation. I don't think going back the drawing board now is a very good idea. What we are lacking is deployment (and, sorry for my part in the lack of that). Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19785.27134.803778.102...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
