Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik <ruskie AT codemages.net>]

:2009-05-17T14:50:Mark Bainter:

> Well, my plans to be present didn't work out, but I am reading through
> the log, and I had a couple of thoughts to share.
> 
> On the topic of an itworks flag, What if we extended sorcery to support
> an additional DETAIL item that would point at either a command or a
> script (maybe with a standardized name) which could be run during
> automated testing, and 'itworks' gets set based on the return value from
> running that?
> 
> For most packages it should be fairly simple to at least try to run the
> primary binary, and make sure it doesn't segfault or throw library or
> other runtime dependency errors that aren't caught by the casting itself.  
> 
> If there's no pointer, it's just an unknown, but a hard failure or hard
> success at least helps to prioritize issues.  And, it shouldn't add too
> much additional labor for most spells, and it would be sufficiently
> flexible that packages that typically break in a given set of ways can
> have tests added to the script for those specific concerns.
> 
> 

As it was said you are offloading an it works to a "runs" check which is
something completely different.

-- 
Andraž ruskie Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games/Xorg grimoire guru
Geek/Hacker/Tinker

Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.