Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:51:42 +0800 From: 邓尧 <torshie@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Release test framework If busybox is used, the test framework itself would depend on musl-libc, which means test test framework would depend on the test subject. In theory, it's a bad bad idea. 0.02$ On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > One thing that's still missing that I had on the Roadmap for 0.9.15 is > establishing a formal testing procedure for releasing. Basically what > I have in mind is: > > For each arch: > Assume the existence of a musl-cross compiler for it. > Build musl and install to a prefix under the rest root. > Build libc-test configured to use the new headers/libs. > Create cpio archive containing: > Newly built musl libc.so. > Newly built libc-test tree. > Provided base system template containing: > Busybox. > Simple /etc tree. > Minimal init script to run tests. > Boot qemu using a provided kernel and the new initramfs. > Save output of tests outside the qemu environment. > Diff against expected results for comparison. > > Does this seem like a reasonable and useful test procedure? Is anyone > willing to volunteer to write the scripts for it? > > Rich > Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.