May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

[Eric Sandeen]

On 2/21/14, 9:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
>>>
>>> I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer
>>> is doing. If they are shipping just vanilla upstream tar.gz then they can
>>> have a moderate level of confidence in the functionality of their package
>>> without tests, since you can assume upstream ran their test before release.
>>
>> Upstream may not have run the test on all archs supported by Fedora.
>> ARM is probably still not something we can assume everyone has. I was
>> dealing with a test which failed only on 32-bit systems just
>> yesterday, I didn't notice it until I tried building the package in
>> koji.
> 
> Yes indeed, the quality of libvirt upstream on non-x86 in general has
> directly benefited from the fact that the our Fedora RPMs are running
> %check on all arches, so generating nice bugs reports for us.

Ditto for e2fsprogs, we found lots of endian bugs that way.

(But:  OMG, please, no, don't file 1000 bugs demanding new test suites
from packagers!)

-Eric

> Regards,
> Daniel
>