[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: Breaking testing.sh
From:       Bernhard Fischer <rep.nop () aon ! at>
Date:       2005-10-31 23:26:47
Message-ID: 20051031232647.GA7025 () aon ! at
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 05:03:46PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Monday 31 October 2005 08:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:36:47PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > Congratulations, the introduction of --force means our test
>> > infrastructure can no longer be used to test against the gnu utilities so
>> > we can confirm our behavior against mainstream.
>> >
>> > That should _NOT_ be the default.  The darn flag should go the _other_
>> > way...
>>
>> uhh, what ?
>
>I'd been planning on submitting the new busybox testing to the Linux Test 
>Project people, since they have so few command line tests.  It was also 
>designed so that I could trivially run the same set of tests against some 
>other version of the command in question (like the gnu one) to check 
>compatability.
>
>Now it's hardwired to be busybox-specific by default, for absolutely no reason 
>as far as I can see.

Rob,

I'm in no way involved with it in any way.. Still, how are you executing
the harness to make it "fail", exactly?

BTW, I have a hard time on providing sustainable tests for process
realted stuff, locally (see pidof, ps to name just two). Do the current
tests for e.g. pidof work reliably for anybody, out of curiousity?

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]