[TIP] including (or not) tests within your package

[David Stanek]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Olemis Lang <olemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Michael Foord
> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2010 20:29, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>>
>>> 0.02 €: As a user, I prefer not to have tests and extensive docs per
>>> default. I like installing an OS and lots of useful packages on very
>>> small hard drives/partitions. I’m biased, since I use OS packages that
>>> are already built and tested for my setup.
>>>
>>
>> Right - horses for courses. As a user it frustrates the *heck* out of me
>> when a package doesn't include documentation, especially if I install it and
>> then try to use it when I no longer have an internet connection. I always
>> trust a package a lot more if it comes with tests, even if I don't actually
>> run them...
>>
>
> It comes with tests but not inside the same package . I'm sure that if
> somebody considers all the instances of Apache running public Internet
> sites (restrict the scope, on Debian | Ubuntu ;o) the percent with
> apache-doc installed will be almost 0% ... or is it that you use to
> install apache-doc in each and every such server so that you'll be
> able to read the docs when ... when ?
>
> What's the difference between having tests inside the package and
> having a separate pkg for that . I mean, in the end you'll always be
> able to test it , and that's what really matters (or not ?)
>

As a package developer I find it very convenient to have docs and
tests directories at the same level as my source code. Does it really
matter if you get a couple extra K of date when you install the
package?

-- 
David
blog: http://www.traceback.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/dstanek