On 07/27/2012 01:15 PM, Karel Zak wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:47:46PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> On 07/27/2012 12:31 PM, Karel Zak wrote: >>> Maybe, but many of the tests requires root permissions and it's >>> designed for developers only. I'd like to avoid situations when the >>> tests are executed with root permissions by automatic distro build >>> systems etc. >> >> Why? The more folks run the tests, the more bugs can be reported and fixed. >> What's wrong about the tests? And if there's something wrong: shouldn't >> they not be made more robust? >> >> E.g. coreutils also has many tests which "require_root", and I think >> it's safe to run these tests. > > Does the tests modify /etc/fstab, mount another filesystems and > initialize scsi_debug, loop and raid devices? yes, but I don't consider mount/umount as too dangerous - coreutils' test suite also does it. Some more harmful tests could be guarded by some special mechanism, e.g. an environment variable. > I have experience that some distros and end-users rebuild packages > as superuser. Building as root is certainly not okay, but prior to packaging UL into a distro or applying it on a few servers, I expect every admin and distro maintainer to run 'make check'. With a proper test suite, we give him/her a basic test to check whether the software is running as expected in his/her environment. Otherwise, he doesn't have much chance other than waiting for productive problems. > I don't want to be responsible for possible problems on > the target systems. You aren't: $ grep -i warranty COPYING ;-) Have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
