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