On 19/11/19 5:19 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 19/11/2019 02:15, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 18/11/19 6:10 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> This simplifies the build and avoids some host dependencies, e.g. >>> availability of symbolic links in the host file system. Makes it >>> possible to validate time stamps. >>> >>> Update #3818. >>> --- >>> testsuites/libtests/Makefile.am | 41 >>> ++++++++------------------------- >>> testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar | Bin 0 -> 10240 bytes >>> testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar.gz | Bin 0 -> 296 bytes >>> testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar.xz | Bin 0 -> 340 bytes >>> testsuites/libtests/tar02/tar02.tar | Bin 0 -> 10240 bytes >>> 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar >>> create mode 100644 testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar.gz >>> create mode 100644 testsuites/libtests/tar01/tar01.tar.xz >>> create mode 100644 testsuites/libtests/tar02/tar02.tar >> >> How are the tar files created? > > I copied the files from my build tree to the source tree.
OK, makes sense. >> How do we capture what is in them and how to regenerate them? > > Ok, this is an issue. You have to unpack them, change your stuff, and > re-create > them by hand. Hmm. We need to capture what it is we want in the tar file, for example the script to create it could be held in it. >> At the moment I >> can inspect all of this test via cgit. The idea of downloading and checking >> can >> be problematic depending on the host and set up, ie a tablet. >> >> Has the generation of these files been checked on more than Linux? > > I doubt that anyone did run the tests using a FAT file system on the host for > example. Well maybe not FAT but I have on Windows. Build the tools, build RTEMS, run the test. It is this simplicity I like. >> How do we check updated host tools have not broken the code we have in RTEMS? > > I would consider it a serious bug in a future host pax tool if it breaks the > RTEMS code. We have had issues in the past so it can happen and on Windows I have seen a few times over the years. >> I am concerned we are loosing some of the checking that we currently have >> moving >> to this approach. The symlink issue is a real one so maybe we hold a single >> tar >> to check that works. > > With the dynamic generation of the archive we cannot test the file > permissions, > the group and user IDs, and the time stamps. Ah yes this is a good point. Could we have a single tar file that tests those parts and others that are generated to test the host and RTEMS code? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
