Testing & Verification of Packages (was RE: Image factoring)
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Wed Nov 13 01:44:44 UTC 2002
Michael Rueger <m.rueger at acm.org> wrote:
> Swan, Dean wrote:
> > For these reasons and probably a bunch of others I haven't listed,
> > automated tests aren't always practical, or even if the tests are
> > written, the tests may not be appropriate for everybody who wants to
> > use the package to run.
>
> I agree. They still provide some basic coverage of core functionality
> testing for those who are interested in it.
>
> > I'm not too excited about the idea of having to take an "official
> > release" of the Squeak kernel and add packages in my own unique
> > combination to get the image I want then have to spend lots of time
> > verifying my newly constructed image.
>
> Again, I agree. We don't want the RPM hell of edit config file,
> configure, download new/old GCC, compile, run, start over...
>
> At the Squeak BoF the concept of distributions was discussed. Based on
> the kernel image and available packages there could (and will) be ready
> to use kitchen sink, Comanche, squeakland etc images. It will be in the
> responsibility of the distribution maintainers to exercise tests (SUnit
> and/or otherwise) to ensure a working image.
>
> Michael
Exactemente. I call this an "image configuration". And they will be
publishable on SM just like packages.
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|