On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:15:45PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: >> Here's the draft: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Testing >> >> Comments/additions welcomed! >> > Cool. Ive read the draft now. I thought it was going to be about using > Xnest with graphical unittests. Oops. Doesn't 100% fit in the Packaging > Guidelines but perhaps we can link to it when we mention that reviewers > should test that a package functions as intended. Hmm... I think that would be quite a bit more complicated. I don't think Xnest would be the right tool for that. I really don't know enough about X to guess. I would think that the build server probably runs without X and even if it could run some sort of headless X just for testing purposes we probably would have to make sure that each package building in parallel that needed this feature (however unlikely) ran on a different display. What's the limit on the number of displays anyway? The main reason I include it under the Packaging Guidelines umbrella is that I use it to run rpmlint on installed packages, especially libraries, where you can find additional problems that rpmlint can't detect from checking the RPMs. I'm not saying we should make it a requirement, but perhaps "strongly recommended" would be a good idea. > /me notices that although that instruction is in the ReviewGuidelines we > dont seem to have it on the main Guidelines page. I assume you're talking about? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
