Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:48:02 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Release test framework * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2013-12-03 17:11:53 -0500]: > 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? libc-test is not well organized for running it out of tree, it uses gnu make to run the tests and generate the reports now so the target needs make as well otherwise it looks ok btw if tests are run as root then a bit more interfaces can be tested (setuid, permission failure handling, etc) which are not yet in the scope of libc-test
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.