I fully support your campaign Lars. I've ever been willing to write automatic tests for a lot of packages of mine. And even a large subset of them (all OCaml related ones for example) can benefit of the very same test applied to them. I never added the test simply because there is no infrastructure for doing it and I'm thus stick to: build the package -> dpkg -i it -> manually run the test. Surely an error-prone practice. I would really like to have a standardized way to do tests.
Thanks for your study on this! > Let's take quality assurance seriously > ====================================== <snip> > * Reporting serious problems found by lintian/linda as bugs > against packages. Still, I think we should start from simple objectives which can be easily achieved. The one above qualifies in this set IMO. I know a lot of lintian warnings/errors about packages of mine are sitting on lintian.debian.org unaddressed. Had them been reported on the BTS, I know I would have fixed them. It's stupid, I know, but I've ever used the BTS to drive my Debian work and I believe a lot of other DDs are working the same way. Adding a (semi-)automated mechanism for reporting those warning/errors as bug report would improve packages quality. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
