On Wednesday 17 of February 2016 20:43:50 Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> Álvaro> I think running tests is cool for the packaging process,
> but is this needed for packaging? I mean, it's upstream who should run
> them before releasing versions, right? :)
>
> If you pick "upstream build artifact", you know it is tested.
Right, test in some defined CI environment, which is perfect -- but you
are still not able to run the tests on Gentoo/Arch/Fedora/RHEL
environments, without maven, etc.
We do care about testing in Fedora -- that is why we enable testsuites
after package builds automatically (before it is provided to end users)
and we have real people doing the QA manually. So you *still know* that
the software is tested.
It still does not mean that your tests are not beneficial, just saying
that those should be probably more adaptable to allow us to use those.
> If you use custom-made-kludge-patched build process, you'd better test
> that new artifact before use.
This is truth for every software, maven is not an exception. The negative
thing in maven is that you might easily end-up crossing laws (if you e.g.
distribute to your customer GPL based software dependant on osgi).
> It can easily fail in a unexpected way. For instance: not all ${...}
> being replaced, not all the classes present, missing translations, etc,
> etc.
>
> Nothing personal. Just facts.
The missing classes are not missed on Linux. And nobody else is going to
use those jar files, so no problem there. But yes. What I propose here
is not perfect, but is the safer, legally safer -- and at first it is the
less painful :( if we do sum(downstream maintainers work).
Pavel
