Anarcat, thanks for continuing to push on this, it's really appreciated! On Thu 2018-11-22 10:54:41 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > I was hoping publishing the test package would trigger some feedback; it > didn't. While I can do some tests of my own, the surface area of this is > so vast that it feels somewhat pointless to run discrete tests.
I think of it the other way -- if there's a vast surface area, then
running any tests you can seems reasonable. the trick is more about how
we decide which tests to prioritize, since we're not going to run every
test.
I'd start with the things that most obviously, directly use these
libraries. so that probably means running the build-time (and maybe
run-time, if they exist?) tests for:
* cryptsetup
* gpgme
* gmime
* libotr
Then if we want to go another step further afield, try running tests
from the more relevant (popcon-based if you want to be rigorous?)
packages. off the top of my head, i'd try:
* mutt
* claws
* mcabber
And of course, if we're moving modern enigmail packaging into jessie,
then we have the modern enigmail test suite that we can try to run as
well (debian packaging for enigmail prior to what's in buster didn't
have a good test suite at all).
sound plausible? I know it's a non-trivial amount of work, but i think
if these test suites pass, and no one else has raised any concerns, it
would seem reasonable to me to move forward.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
