On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
What is the actual connection between "testing" and the graph you
have included?
Um. OK, sure, I'll spell it out.
1. We have a lot of ports. The number of ports we have is growing at
3-4 digit rates a year.
2. The essential mission of any given port is to build software and,
one hopes, install it in a relatively canonical fashion.
3. How are we testing that the above proposition is actually true for
any given port?
What I'm essentially proposing is that a testing harness be built which:
1. Iterates through all Portfiles on the system, save those explicitly
marked "Broken" (which will be periodically swept and marked for
extermination after a short jury trial).
2. For each Portfile, introspects it for any and all explicit variants
and then does n builds, where build #1 is "the default configuration"
and subsequent builds are for each of the variants it advertises.
3. A summary report is generated based on each port which (in the
human-readable form), looks something like this:
Port: scabtaculous
Version: 1.0
<whatever other summary info about port is interesting:
Build: Default
Status: FAIL
Where: install
Link: SomeURLToFail
Build: +opengl
Status: SUCCESS
Build: +postgres
Status: FAIL
Where: Dependent port postgres
Link: URLToPostgresFail
Etc.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
