| 1 |
On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 |
| 7 |
>>> Patrice Clement <monsieurp@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:10:27, Michał Górny wrote : |
| 10 |
>>>>> Hi, everyone. |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being |
| 13 |
>>>>> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects |
| 14 |
>>>>> that I've forgotten who was working on most of them. |
| 15 |
>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>> I know that Toralf is doing tinderboxing for most of the stuff. |
| 17 |
>>>>> What other projects do we have there? What is their status? |
| 18 |
>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>>> Is there anything we could try to integrate with pull requests to get |
| 20 |
>>>>> a better testing? |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>> -- |
| 23 |
>>>>> Best regards, |
| 24 |
>>>>> Michał Górny |
| 25 |
>>>>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
| 26 |
>>>> |
| 27 |
>>>> Continuous integration is all the rage these days and tinderboxing is the |
| 28 |
>>>> obvious way to go concerning Gentoo. AFAIK, Toralf is the only contributor |
| 29 |
>>>> doing tinderboxing out of his own will. In reality, we should have a team of |
| 30 |
>>>> devs looking after our own tinderboxes instead of relying on the community. |
| 31 |
>>>> |
| 32 |
>>>> I'm wondering if we could start a donation campain for this project and ask |
| 33 |
>>>> people if they've got spare machines laying around. I know a lot of folks are |
| 34 |
>>>> reading this mailing list so maybe asking on gentoo-dev first for a start would |
| 35 |
>>>> be appropriate. |
| 36 |
>>> |
| 37 |
>>> Hardware is not the problem. Lack of software is. |
| 38 |
>>> |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> Have you considered using openQA[1] like openSUSE[2] and Fedora[3] do |
| 41 |
>> instead of reinventing the wheel? |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> [1] http://open.qa/ |
| 44 |
>> [2] https://openqa.opensuse.org/ |
| 45 |
>> [3] https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/ |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Do you by any chance happen to know how it maps to our needs? |
| 48 |
> At a first glance it seems quite tangential. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Depends on what you want to test. I guess openQA would be a very good |
| 52 |
solution if you want to test a snapshot of the tree against the most |
| 53 |
common scenarios for example |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
- todays snapshot with plasma5 |
| 56 |
- todays snapshot with gnome3 |
| 57 |
- todays snapsnot with lxqt |
| 58 |
- ... |
| 59 |
- todays snapshot with a few tests against popular console packages |
| 60 |
* can gcc build small C test files? |
| 61 |
* does bash work? |
| 62 |
* does coreutils popular tools work as expected? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Having such scenarios in place is probably a more realistic testing |
| 66 |
approach than simply build everything with random USE flags just for the |
| 67 |
sake of build coverage. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
Regards, |
| 71 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives