Agreeing with what pretty much everyone else has said, I'd also like to add that this isn't the first time someone has requested something like this. Iirc, there was a small attempt at automating at least some part of it, you may still find artifacts of it lingering around in the scripts directory. Other alternatives include things like autotest, STP at OSDL, or even rolling your own. As Randy suggested, it isn't all that hard to automate kernel build and boot. But end to end automation normally requires some level of integration with your hardware/network infrastructure. It can be done in a generic enough way, sure, but normally ends up spiraling out of control into something difficult to setup and manage. People tend to look at something like that and decide they could come up with something simpler (but not generic enough to be used anywhere) themselves.
-Paul Larson On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 09:43 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:02:55 +0530 Subrata Modak wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Recent OLS 2008 was a critical point in LTP´s evolution, as i got the > > opportunity to meet several people across the Linux ecosystem, and > > listened to their opinion about LTP. Here i would start a mail chain > > with the above Subject line, discuss each and every issue in this > > mailing list, collate everybody´s opinion on those issue(s) and take > > action accordingly. These are the people i encountered: > > > > 1) People, who uses LTP heavily. And they suggested lots of improvement > > to it. We will discuss those issues in mails from now, > > > > 2) People, who have heard about LTP and not used it till now. They > > promised that they will give a try, > > > > 3) People, who has never heard about it. So, it was an opportunity to > > convey them what LTP is all about. I hope people in Category 2 & 3 will > > start using LTP soon, and we will get an enlarged user base and hence > > bringing more contribution in future. > > > > ================= > > ISSUE # 1 > > ================= > > The heavy users made a point of LTP having the capability to automate > > testing completely. What they meant was LTP to have capability to do: > > 1) Kernel Build, > > With what/how many configs? > > > 2) Kernel Install/Distro install, > > With which/how many distros? This is an unending mess... > and $someone will say "you don't support my $distro". > > > > 3) Then do specific/all tests, > > (Like Serge said) Just focus here. > > > > They said that this feature will simplify the way they work. I would > > like to know what you all think about this. > > > > What i feel is, every project should evolve and should be flexible > > enough to meet their users requirement dynamically, and should not be > > tied down with the limitations of it´s initial design constraints. If > > automating kernel build, install and tests is a requirement coming from > > the user community, then we need to give a hard look at it. I would like > > to know what you think about this. > > Kernel builds are relatively easy to do & automating them isn't difficult. > OTOH, installing a distro is a much larger task in my experience. > > > --- > ~Randy > Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA > http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
