On Friday 19 June 2009 05:59:33 walter harms wrote: > Denys Vlasenko schrieb: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Rob Landley<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've had infrastructure for that toybox for over a year. I have a big > >> todo item to port as much of the toybox infrastructure as I can back > >> into BusyBox, it's just not at the top of my todo list yet and it's a > >> big thing I'll have to do in stanges (and several bits of which are kind > >> of intrusive requiring documentation, explanation of the rationale, and > >> probably extensive discussion). > >> > >> First question: is the current test suite more closely maintained than > >> the documentation directory? > > > > Yes. Regressions are not allowed (meaning, they are checked > > and fixed, it is not bit rotting). > > > >> (Is there somebody specific caring for it, or just > >> "when the maintainer has spare time"?) > > > > I don't remember anyone specifically focusing on > > just a part of busybox. > > I do not know about your rights on busybox.net. > Is it possible to have nightly/Weekly build and run the test-suit against > it ? > > that could help to find problems especialy in last-minute-fixes.
I'm setting up a nightly build here, for a bunch of different targets (x86, x86_64, arm, mips, powerpc, sh4). I can upload the results if you like. I'm also testing linking against uClibc nightly snapshots, built against linux kernel nightly snapshots. I just have to break it up so it's _useful_, since that's too many failure sources. :) I could upload statically linked binaries (against uClibc) of the defconfigs so you can run 'em under qemu to test. I've also got root filesystem images with kernels that you can boot to a command prompt under qemu and test that way... Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
