dbus unit tests and $DISPLAY
simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk
Wed Jun 11 05:50:13 PDT 2014
On 11/06/14 13:03, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014, at 03:03 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> I briefly tried to do "make check" on the buildds, but gave up when I
>> hit <http://bugs.debian.org/630152> (Debian buildds run as a user whose
>> "official" home directory in /etc/passwd does not exist, as a technical
>> way to enforce the policy that package builds should not write to
> Debian's tools could use https://git.gnome.org/browse/linux-user-chroot
> for this.
They could, but they don't, and I don't think that's likely to change
any time soon (particularly via a Linux-specific tool, since Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD is a release architecture). The official buildds
(autobuilders) use sbuild (analogous to mock or obs-build) + schroot,
individual developers use whatever they want.
As a maintainer of an individual package, I don't have much influence
over the maintainers of the autobuilder infrastructure; src:dbus doesn't
get to be a special unique snowflake.
> What's the current state of Debian ADT versus
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/InstalledTests ?
Individual packages that have GNOME installed-tests typically have some
boilerplate that runs gnome-desktop-testing-runner, and run that as one
of their tests (or sometimes their only test, but there's often a
trivial compile/link/execute smoke-test for the development packages too).
> I think last we talked you were amenable to DBus installing
> InstalledTests .test
I'd be happy to review a patch.
> And someone was looking at building an automatic bridge from
> InstalledTests to ADT, right?
I've talked to the autopkgtest developers about installed-tests, but
they don't seem particularly enthusiastic; I think they consider the
current approach (a bit of boilerplate per GNOME package) to be good enough.
More information about the dbus