Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: Documentation Update

[Mike Z.]

On 25/08/2005, at 3:36 PM, Grobian wrote:

>>
>>
>
> Another thing that crossed my mind when going to work this morning:
>
> When people submit bugs for working/new packages, they usually tell it
> works fine, or in some cases that they applied a little patch to
> get it
> working.  However, before even thinking of keywording, I want to know
> whether the package reasonably works.  That means, I want to do
> some small
> sanity check, or just functional check that the application or library
> appears to work as expected.  I think you cannot expect any dev to
> know
> every package in portage, let alone being common with using it.  So
> I'd
> propose to add a little note on the "reporting bugs" section that
> asks the
> users to -- if they can come up with it:
> 1) in case of an application tell us how you can test it works:
> example,
> streamripper, do streamripper http://some.host.com/music path/to/
> bla.mp3,
> listen to the mp3, it appears to work fine
> 2) in case of a library tell us what application can be used to
> test it,
> preferable small and direct: example, libpcre, emerge mp with USE flag
> pcre, start mp on a file, press Ctrl-a navigate in the menu to search,
> type a regular expression search like .(build|merge|keyword)+,
> check it
> matches an appropriate string
>

Definitely, compilation is fine, but you need to have some sort of  
runtime testing as well. On the note of libraries, I would think,  
rather than keywording libraries that compile, we should wait until  
an application that requires them also needs to be keyworded. This  
will probably depend on which library it is, but it'd mean that we  
have a full deptree for each application, as well as a useful real- 
world test case.

Mike Z. [shootingstar]


-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list