On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
> to have upstream test suites and how many don't:
>
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
>
>
>
> In general around 35% do have test suites, the rest don't.
>
> My goal is to bring down the number of packages which ship without
> any sort of test suite inside their code base.
>
> The first step is to identify them and track them in Bugzilla.
>
>
> My question is: **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK
> with me filing 1000+ bugs ?**
>
>
> Last time I did so (around 100 bugs) it got a few people unhappy
> so better ask this time!
>
> If you are unhappy seeing such many bugs and having your mailbox
> full with notifications from Bugzilla please reply with a better
> proposal and why do you consider it better.
>
>
> Thanks, Alex
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged
upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that
package and as such are probably not equipped to add tests to their
systems.
A better case here would be to find a way to identify those packages
whose upstreams have tests that are not being run in %check. That
probably *would* be considered a bug.
Unless there's a decree from FESCo or FPC about requiring this, it's
going to be up to the maintainer as to whether using %check to run
testsuites is required. A lot of testsuites require external network
access and won't work when run under koji. Also, it increases build
time and can bloat BuildRequires. It is *not* a clear-cut bug.
Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
josh