On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:11 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:11:15 +0200, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 23.11.15 18:00, R. David Murray wrote: >> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:58:01 -0600, Zachary Ware >> > <zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I haven't looked at this, but unless the buildbot does *not* have write >> > access to the installed directories (ie: the install was done as another >> > user) it isn't really doing a full installed python test. >> >> Yes, but at least it catches cases where some files are not installed. >> There were few issues with this. > > True. Something incomplete in this vein is better than nothing. I'm > Not sure you should call it "Installed" though, as that will be a bit > misleading. Most of the "can't run the tests on installed python" bugs > are because the tree is read-only (obviously, not all of them!). > Maybe call it "local install"? Wordy, I know, but more accurate.
I've gone with attempting to make it more like a 'real' install, by wrapping the test step with appropriate 'chmod' commands to make the install directory not writable, and confirmed during a test run that the entire installed tree is -w. I also fixed the slave's usage of usePTY (for test_curses) to avoid the failures that had been happening in the 'uninstall' step. -- Zach _______________________________________________ Python-Buildbots mailing list Python-Buildbots@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-buildbots
