OpenBSD Journal

Package testing time

Contributed by sean on from the quality on the quantity dept.

dmitri writes in to remind us:

In order to make the coming 4.0 release the best yet, porters are calling for users to test the latest snapshot packages and the ports tree itself.

Make sure you report every problem you encounter.

Thank you.

Editor's note:
Packages compiling successfully are only one part of the ports equation. Actually using the installed ports and validating them at run time is just as important as insuring the damned things compile cleanly in the first place. Compound this with the ever increasing number of ports and you get the bi-yearly problem of testing ports. Please, at the very minimum try out the ports you use and rely on.

(Comments are closed)


Comments
  1. By David Chisnall (137.44.2.39) on

    I recently found a minor bug in an OpenBSD package (now fixed) caused by the fact that the upstream maintainer had changed the bundled config file in a way that was incompatible with OpenBSD and the port maintainer did not use the default config.

    If you are testing an port against 4.0 then please try to spend a little while testing it before you modify the config files.

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (84.134.42.193) on

      Ports aren't thus important now. Better test binary *packages* (which doesn't meen that you couldn't do this by building them youself from ports).

      Install them, uninstall them, if you've a virgin test system with no pacakges installed, check wether all dependencies work, etc...

      For example, qt4 doesn't cleanly uninstall (I'm just rebuilding it to test with a changed PLIST).

  2. By Anonymous Coward (193.85.68.235) on

    Great work...

    ...but could you apply patch sent in @ports to add -fastcgi flavor in php5?

    Thanks a lot.

    Comments
    1. By David Chisnall (137.44.2.39) on

      > ...but could you apply patch sent in @ports to add -fastcgi flavor in php5?

      Seconded. Trying to run PHP and Lighttpd with the default packages is quite painful at the moment. I would love to have this Just Work™.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (82.195.149.9) on

        > > ...but could you apply patch sent in @ports to add -fastcgi flavor in php5?
        >
        > Seconded. Trying to run PHP and Lighttpd with the default packages is quite painful at the moment. I would love to have this Just Work™.

        Ports is in lock. I think the chances of this making it in before release are slim. Press for inclusion after unlock.

    2. By aki (70.109.181.118) on http://blowfishbsd.blogspot.com/

      > Great work...
      >
      > ...but could you apply patch sent in @ports to add -fastcgi flavor in php5?
      >
      > Thanks a lot.

      How To is here
      http://blowfishbsd.blogspot.com/

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (193.85.68.235) on

        > > Great work...
        > >
        > > ...but could you apply patch sent in @ports to add -fastcgi flavor in php5?
        > >
        > > Thanks a lot.
        >
        > How To is here
        > http://blowfishbsd.blogspot.com/

        howto with apache? :) chrooted apache, suexec, php5-fastcgi...

        jirib

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (193.85.68.235) on

          anyway, i'm still curious why openbsd's default httpd isn't patched to talk ipv6? i know ipv6 patch for apache 1.3.x is old, but is it so hard to maintain this patch?
          i would really appreciate it as apache 1.3.x is in base and all apache modules in ports are ready for this version...

          compiling manually apache2 works, but don't we want to get everything working out-of-box? :)

          jirib

  3. By Sonny (67.41.143.194) on

    I am happy to test snapshots, in fact I have the latest installed on 3 systems right now. But I don't have a good way to check things out, without exercising each thing I do manually on each.

    Is there any more info on how to set up my own regression tests, or how the developers use regression testing and how it coule be used by users to provide helpful feedback? I'm thinking it may be easier for them to test it, rather than try to answer all the questions from users whow misunderstand the results.

    Right now, one of my systems is having trouble with bounces on the /etc/daily messages, and I would like to run tests to figure out where either I messed up or there is a bug. Wouldn't a regression test help to figure out if there was a problem with dns, config or other?

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]