[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
