Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I don't see how the Makepkgs change can be breaking things for QA.
> [...]
I believe the problem arose from the Makepkgs run building an RPM with
a different --libexecdir than the src tree left over after Makepkgs'
own invocation of ../configure. The RPM and the src/include files did
not match in terms of pcp.conf etc. So when qa scripts started running,
intended to target the installed RPMs, they instead pulled in the
src/include stuff, and materialized the conflict into errors.
> I do think we have a big problem associated with moving QA into the PCP
> tree, namely that we descend into qa and qa/src _both_ in the build and
> when running QA from a workarea (the latter being a non-negotiable
> requirement IMHO for on-going QA maintenance and development).
>
> Seems like we need to back QA out the PCP tree _or_ find some clever way
> of making the makefiles schizophrenic.
I think this is a special case of not fully supporting --prefix yet in our
development workflow. If we get a
% configure --prefix=/developer/tree ; make ; make install
installation working as the main way to do development, and then have the
qa testsuite, configured with the same prefix, should be able to run against
the --prefix tree. Then testing the installed system version is just a
special case, of --prefix=/usr --FOODIR=/bar etc, as per Makepkgs.
The benefit is that there'd be no need to run pcpqa directly against
the build accidentally left behind in the source tree.
- FChE
|