Massimiliano Mirra [mailto:list / chromatic-harp.com] wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 11:48:15PM +0900, nathaniel / talbott.ws wrote:
> > Er, actually there's only backwards compatibility for RubyUnit...
does 
> > anyone need it for Lapidary?
> 
> Fine with me, I'll happily convert my Lapidary tests to 
> Test::Unit rather than having compatibility layers in between.

Sounds good.


> The Debian model allows preinstallation and postinstallation 
> scripts. I can introduce them and condition the package 
> installation to a successful return code from the 
> preinstallation script.  Running the tests or not would then 
> be the choice of the package maintainer, and I'd prefer that 
> over enforcing tests from within rpkg code.  Would this be fine?

This is exactly what I'd like to have.


> > BTW, I'd love to have a Test::Unit rpkg (at least until it goes in
to 
> > the standard distribution). I'm going to try to look in to it, but
if 
> > someone else wanted to create it, they're welcome to.
> 
> If after you open usage.html and go to the section on package 
> creation it takes you longer than fifteen minutes, I'll 
> package Test::Unit and pay you a beer. ;-)

Cool... I'll check it out soon.


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc.
| EQUIP VI