From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6625908871596605440 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 05:14:48 -0800 (PST) From: chombourger@gmail.com To: isar-users Message-Id: <1d93779a-341d-407a-aac2-997085092e61@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <96df0cdff3e6f9f50eaba46ab163b40bfb88e946.camel@denx.de> References: <525a1c5b7730f98e1236e1596cf31dc3e23e1b5e.camel@denx.de> <20181120135119.119185af@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> <96df0cdff3e6f9f50eaba46ab163b40bfb88e946.camel@denx.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] meta: Add targz image class MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2541_1754471942.1542719688924" X-Google-Token: EMiR0N8FUX3p7elkfgA0 X-Google-IP: 192.94.31.2 X-TUID: TJikiLsrAe1r ------=_Part_2541_1754471942.1542719688924 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2542_146525085.1542719688925" ------=_Part_2542_146525085.1542719688925 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 2:07:35 PM UTC+1, Harald Seiler wrote: > > > How will we test that? > > The final tar could be checked agains the rootfs tree generated > during the build using: > > tar --compare --file=archive-file.tar -C /some/where/ > > I am not sure if this is worth it though, as this will always work > unless tar itself made a mistake ... I think the recipe is trivial > enough that this check can be omitted. > > I wonder if Jan was instead asking how would be have this feature tested? possibly from a CI perspective? ------=_Part_2542_146525085.1542719688925 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 2:07:35 PM UTC+1,= Harald Seiler wrote:
> How = will we test that?

The final tar could be checked agains the rootfs tree generated
during the build using:

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0tar --compare --file=3D= archive-file.tar -C /some/where/

I am not sure if this is worth it though, as this will always work
unless tar itself made a mistake ... I think the recipe is trivial
enough that this check can be omitted.


I wonder if Jan was instead asking= how would be have this feature tested? possibly from a CI perspective?
=C2=A0
------=_Part_2542_146525085.1542719688925-- ------=_Part_2541_1754471942.1542719688924--