Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Proposal: testsuite support in APKBUILDs
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
References: <CA+T2pCEB9g=un1jx0x2k+wKNQWeBt8hijEwq1Yy+qLLvb0OVrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170126112655.44ad5c0e@vostro.util.wtbts.net>
 <4EDA0683-3991-44D0-882C-C34FBD4C38B2@jirutka.cz>
 <i2ems4.oke5ti.1hge1d6-qmf@gmx.com>
 <CA+T2pCF+dFPhWBKcwdUSp_Fr1Jk=rT1Pweap6iPZMXjf6HFi8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5blaf1.okfi73.2tnq26-qmf@gmx.com>
 <CA+T2pCErwS_KFW98fvJ86-cx-dmpruxeCVKu-gG-2Ud08UVwpw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>, timo.teras@iki.fi,
 Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>
From: 7heo <7heo@mail.com>
Message-ID: <5890704A.8090402@mail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:08:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+T2pCErwS_KFW98fvJ86-cx-dmpruxeCVKu-gG-2Ud08UVwpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey again,

On 1/29/2017 9:49 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:59 AM, 7heo <7heo@mail.com> wrote:
>> I am really confused that you want to use a wrong vocab because GNU software already use it. Plus, it was my understanding that our tool's name isn't 'make' (since it's about identical terms).
>
> Has very little to do with GNU software, "make check" is #2 most
> frequently used in APKBUILD to invoke the testsuite behind "make
> test".  "test" is a shell built-in and cannot be used, as others have
> said in the thread.  The reason why "make check" is used so
> frequently, is because those packages have an automake-based build
> system.
Yes, it was my understanding that the choice of "check" as an 
alternative to "test" isn't a core belief of the GNU community. However, 
it is proposed here because it occurs often, and it occurs often because 
it is used in a GNU software. That's nothing new and is what I meant: I 
do not want to repeat the mistakes made by communities we do not wish to 
follow (please tell me if you think I'm wrong), because of their choices 
and focuses.

TL;DR: Why would we perpetuate a mistake "because it's popular"? I 
thought that this was the very idea alpine was against.

>
>> I understand that for many people this discussion may seems like a waste of time, but using the correct vocabulary is an essential part of code-as-documentation.
>>
>> Going with check is not a huge inaccuracy I admit; but it will most likely effectively hinder the understanding of newcomers while lowering the learning curve for GNU people/users.
>
> I'm not really convinced that any new packager will be hindered any
> further by that considering that we can explain it in the "how to
> write an APKBUILD" guide.  We should not make decisions based on
> people who do not read docs.

Here, I couldn't disagree more. I would never ask every user, every 
developer, ever person who ever uses a software to read their entire 
documentation thoroughly. There are bits such as proc(5), queue(3) and 
perf_event_open(2) that are just too big. And that is just the tip of 
the iceberg. One of the main reasons why the UNIX philosophy is so 
popular among seasoned geeks is because they can grok most things 
without having to consult the documentation every ten minutes or so. And 
that is because of the high reuse of ideas and concepts as much as the 
sensible choice of vocabulary.

>
>> I can explain in a separate mail (or on IRC) why I think it is a bad enough idea to attract GNU contributors to alpine, to justify continuing this discussion; but I'll assume here that all alpine contributors share a similar view on the GNU code style.
>
> That's not very nice.  We should, and do, welcome anyone who wants to
> contribute as long as their contributions are in line with the project
> overall.
That is not what I said. Nor what I wanted to talk about. Attracting 
people isn't at all the same as accepting them. What I meant is that we 
shouldn't favor GNU contributors over random contributors.

>
>> So, does anyone agree?
>
> I agree that some care should be taken to ensure the tests verb is
> well known.  This is why I chose "check" as an alternative to
> "testsuite" (since it is #2 behind "make test" which we can't use).
> The most preferable option would be "test" but it's not happening
> without a complete rewrite of abuild, which I don't see happening just
> to support this...
I still fail to understand why "tests" isn't a viable, more fitting 
alternative (after all, most of the time there will be more than one test).

>
> William
>
>

Theo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---