From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Package test service for GNU maintainers
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:07:09 +0200
Message-ID: <87wqa49ojm.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87egwfjhfj.fsf@gnu.org> <20140819060439.GA11093@jocasta.intra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54309)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1XK1WT-0007f8-2K
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:45:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1XK1WL-0002Zl-IL
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:45:36 -0400
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:39924)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1XK1WL-0002Xc-2v
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:45:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20140819060439.GA11093@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message
	of "Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:04:40 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> I could give it a go.

Cool!

> 2. By default, guix does not check that out-of-source builds are function=
al.
>    "make distcheck" on the other-hand does.  Do we want to duplicate the =
function
>    of "make distcheck"?  Perhaps we do, since I have recently seen a rath=
er bad
>    GNU release where it obviously wasn't run.

That=E2=80=99s not the goal here.  The goal would just be to make sure that=
 the
package can be integrated in the distro.

> 3. Should we check too that a package behaves sanely when cross-compiling?

Perhaps, yes.

> 4. Some years ago, somebody knocked up a similar "GNU package linter" and=
 ran
>    it on all GNU packages.  One maintainer got very shitty about a "defic=
iency"
>    that was detected - started demanding an apology, blah, blah blah ...

Was it the CI service at hydra.nixos.org that Rob Vermaas and I got
started?  :-)

I think here we=E2=80=99re aiming for something much more focused, which is
integration of (pre)releases in the distro.

Ludo=E2=80=99.