[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOb3iughuEJ0BGXf5NhfOwPFt8hed9WBQNyUU0YVtTG=n+=G0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:51:42 +0800
From: 邓尧 <torshie@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Release test framework
If busybox is used, the test framework itself would depend on musl-libc,
which means test test framework would depend on the test subject. In
theory, it's a bad bad idea.
0.02$
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> One thing that's still missing that I had on the Roadmap for 0.9.15 is
> establishing a formal testing procedure for releasing. Basically what
> I have in mind is:
>
> For each arch:
> Assume the existence of a musl-cross compiler for it.
> Build musl and install to a prefix under the rest root.
> Build libc-test configured to use the new headers/libs.
> Create cpio archive containing:
> Newly built musl libc.so.
> Newly built libc-test tree.
> Provided base system template containing:
> Busybox.
> Simple /etc tree.
> Minimal init script to run tests.
> Boot qemu using a provided kernel and the new initramfs.
> Save output of tests outside the qemu environment.
> Diff against expected results for comparison.
>
> Does this seem like a reasonable and useful test procedure? Is anyone
> willing to volunteer to write the scripts for it?
>
> Rich
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
