On Friday 19 June 2009 04:16:51 Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 18 June 2009 19:45:07 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 18 June 2009 17:38:49 Rob Landley wrote: > > > On Thursday 18 June 2009 09:35:32 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursday 18 June 2009 07:33:48 David Krakov wrote: > > > > > * I've seen some tests compare with GNU tools output - does it > > > > > require a specific version of GNU utilities? > > > > > > > > we only care about the latest versions. that means some tests may > > > > have been written for older versions and so fail with latest ones. > > > > > > An implementation is not a standard, especially where different gnu > > > tool versions give different results. > > > > the latest version of a GNU tool is the the GNU standard > > Which part of "an implementation is not a standard" did you not understand?
your anal adherence to the word "standard" is irrelevant. we arent talking about the POSIX standard, we're talking about the de-facto GNU standard -- GNU extensions to utilities that people have requested and we've implemented. there are plenty examples of this in busybox already. > > > > or they're > > > > written for the latest and so it is expected they'll fail on older > > > > ones. we should document in the test the last known tested GNU > > > > version, but we should always be targeting the latest GNU releases. > > > > > > We should not be testing against gnu tools. > > > > considering we're implementing GNU features, yes we should. > > A) We've implementing some features beyond SUSv3, but by no means every > weird thing gnu tools do. If you want that, use the gnu tools. no one said we're implementing every GNU extension. we are however implementing common/requested ones and as such, they must be tested against regressions. > B) If you can't run the test suite on a system that hasn't got the gnu > tools installed, it's a useless test suite. wrong. it may be lame or limited and in need of fixing to not depend on specific host tools, but it is by no means useless. > > the entire > > point of these features is to replicate the GNU functionality. > > No, the entire point of these features is to serve the needs of users out > there, most of which don't really care what the gnu tools do. They just > care that their scripts run. and what exactly is the difference ? oh, that's right, there isnt any. busybox serves multiple ends: (1) POSIX compliance (2) common extensions (3) personal itches (4) other stuff. > > and tests > > are designed exactly to make sure the functionality remains working. > > So it's impossible to create a regression test suite for something like a > Python interpreter because the Free Software Foundation never issued a > python interpreter, and your definition of a regression test suite is "run > the FSF version and check the output". (Oh, and if the FSF version changes > it behavior between releases, then we broke even if our code didn't > change.) quit making shit up. my tests are of practical nature: we added functionality that does XYZ and tests have to exist to make sure XYZ continues to function as expected. > > > > > Though there are tests that can be used for this objective, the > > > > > test suite is lacking a simple way to mark existing tests with some > > > > > kind of a flag like POSIXTEST. How do you propose to do that? > > > > > > > > i think we should split the tests so that POSIX and GNU conformance > > > > is kept separate. > > > > > > Annotating existing tests which what context they test is useful. > > > Splitting the test suite into separate scripts means each one now gets > > > half as much attention. > > > > how the scripts are organized is irrelevant to "attention". whether they > > get executed is relevant. my suggestion of splitting the tests was to > > keep things organized and easily skipped when GNU functionality was not > > available ... it did not imply we would stop running the tests. > > Gnu functionality is not _special_. no one said it was. GNU extensions that users are relying on, asking for, and we've implemented need regression checking. end of story. no one cares that the extensions are from the GNU tools -- their source is irrelevant. what does matter is that they are in widespread use, people find them useful, and we've implemented support for it. <snip a whole lot of irrelevant noise> -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
