Richard Purdie wrote:
Would a ptest.bbclass containing the above make more sense? How
widespread do we think these tests will be?
Most source packages include some form of test suite that we want to make into
a -ptest package. I would guesstimate the number to be somewhere between the
number of -dbg and the number of -dev packages. This is why I felt it made
sense to add the handling of -ptest side-by-side with the handling of -dev and
-dbg.
My biggest worry is the overhead of the patches to
software to enable the tests. Are you planning to engage the upstreams
and see if we can get them to accept the patches?
Upstreaming is absolutely the idea, both for the benefit of the entire
ecosystem and of course to reduce the number of patches.
However I won't downplay the effort required to get hundreds of upstream
projects to agree on a common concept for test cross compilation and result
formatting.
I see two main options: Implement first or discuss first.
a) Implement first: We design and implement a good system for yocto/oe and
then, once it has proven itself, engage the larger open source community with
our already tested concept.
Pro: It's easier to discuss an already working system
Con: We'll have to manage patches for all packages until agreement
b) Discuss first: We invite the whole open source community to discuss and try
to agree on how to handle cross-compiled test cases and test result formatting
before we implement anything.
Pro: No increased patch load until agreement
Con: No result until agreement, which could potentially take a long time
My suggestion is a). I'm open for any and all suggestions that would make the
patch load easier to manage.
Also these patches are against OE-Core so need to go to the
openembedded-code mailing list.
I'll update the patches with the feedback I've got and post them to oe-core for
further discussion.
Thanks.
--
Björn
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
