On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:32:49 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 07:54:59AM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:09:14 PM CEST Richard W.M. Jones > > wrote: > > > And related to this question, do we also need to define > > > "TestRequires" packages/dependencies? > > > > Sounds like natural approach would be to install the built packages > > into some minimal environment, and the packages itself should bring > > the dependencies? OTOH, we should be able to limit the set of > > packages to install in such case, somehow. > > The problem is suppose the tests need tool or framework 'X' in order > to run the tests. > > If I was using RPM %check, then I would add: > > BuildRequires: X > > But (I assume?) BuildRequires won't be installed in this testing > environment, so I now have to add instead: > > Requires: X > > That has obvious problems. > > > The TestRequires is interesting idea, too, FTR mentioned in > > rhbz#1134397. I haven't thought much about it yet how feasible it would be, but why not "abuse" rpm infrastructure even for the tests? Introduce foo-test package as a test-suite for package foo and do everything within its spec file - install deps (as BRs), run the tests (in %check), run in chroot, container or natively ... And package test results/logs into the binary foo-test rpm :-) Or leave it without %files. Dan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
