Enrico Tassi writes ("Re: detecting autopkgtest"):
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:08:12PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > There's a hidden assumption here that adt is the only thing that
> > will ever run the tests.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but given http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/
> any implementation of DEP8 should define ADTTMP, sadt included.
Yes. I guess you might be worried, though, that ADTTMP might be set
in some other circumstances. And testing for that variable does seem
to be something of a bodge: having the behaviour of the tests changed
so radically due to setting a vaguely-TMPDIR-like variable doesn't
seem very pretty. So I can see why you don't want to do that.
For now I recommend the solution suggested by Niels Thykier.
If you want another variable then that would be a spec change for the
DEP8 test declaration spec, and you'd probably want to define a new
restriction for it.
> The variable name may be badly chosen, since it is named after a
> particular test runner.
I didn't distinguish the name of the test runner from the name of what
is now thought of as the DEP-8 spec. I think this was the right
choice at the time, compared to the alternative which would then have
been to have two names for two aspects of what at the time was one
thing.
I suggest that we should continue to conflate the names of the initial
runner implementation and of the test specification format. Indeed
"sadt" has borrowed autopkgtest's "adt" name, entirely properly IMO.
Thanks,
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/21048.21145.415655.305...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
