On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 05:12:58PM +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have to admit I'm guessing at what level of automated run-time testing > > we normally have today. We sanity test a sysvinit+busybox image with > > networking, yes? If so, we also do that on systemd and I assume with > > what I put for the systemd+busybox-free we also do there, yes? > > > > I believe we test sysvinit+busybox, and systemd+busybox at runtime via poky > and poky-alt distro configs. > > We also test systemd+busybox-free core-base-utils (without ifupdown), but > only as a build (no runtime tests). See > lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/imagefeatures.py.
Is musl runtime tested at all? ifupdown is one of these recipes where a musl build error was "fixed" with a patch that makes something do the wrong thing at runtime when using musl. > Alex cu Adrian -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
