On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > >> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've > >> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely > >> to have upstream test suites and how many don't: > >> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/ > >> > >> > >> > >> In general around 35% do have test suites, the rest don't. > >> > >> My goal is to bring down the number of packages which ship without > >> any sort of test suite inside their code base. > >> > >> The first step is to identify them and track them in Bugzilla. > >> > >> > >> My question is: **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK > >> with me filing 1000+ bugs ?** > >> > >> > >> Last time I did so (around 100 bugs) it got a few people unhappy > >> so better ask this time! > >> > >> If you are unhappy seeing such many bugs and having your mailbox > >> full with notifications from Bugzilla please reply with a better > >> proposal and why do you consider it better. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, Alex > > > > > > Please make sure to follow > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you > > do not, it will make life very difficult. > > > > That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged > > upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that > > package and as such are probably not equipped to add tests to their > > systems. > > > > A better case here would be to find a way to identify those packages > > whose upstreams have tests that are not being run in %check. That > > probably *would* be considered a bug. > > Unless there's a decree from FESCo or FPC about requiring this, it's > going to be up to the maintainer as to whether using %check to run > testsuites is required. A lot of testsuites require external network > access and won't work when run under koji. Also, it increases build > time and can bloat BuildRequires. It is *not* a clear-cut bug. > > Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all. I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer is doing. If they are shipping just vanilla upstream tar.gz then they can have a moderate level of confidence in the functionality of their package without tests, since you can assume upstream ran their test before release. Running the test suite would however confirm that the package has not been broken due to a change in an new version of an external library/tool it depends on, so is a pretty good idea to enable on balance. If the maintainer is including any non-trivial patches that I think that enabling %check should almost be mandatory to ensure they are not causing regressions through their patches. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
