If busybox is used, the test framework itself would depend  on musl-libc, which means test test framework would depend on the test subject. In theory, it's a bad bad idea.

0.02$


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
One thing that's still missing that I had on the Roadmap for 0.9.15 is
establishing a formal testing procedure for releasing. Basically what
I have in mind is:

For each arch:
        Assume the existence of a musl-cross compiler for it.
        Build musl and install to a prefix under the rest root.
        Build libc-test configured to use the new headers/libs.
        Create cpio archive containing:
                Newly built musl libc.so.
                Newly built libc-test tree.
                Provided base system template containing:
                        Busybox.
                        Simple /etc tree.
                        Minimal init script to run tests.
        Boot qemu using a provided kernel and the new initramfs.
        Save output of tests outside the qemu environment.
        Diff against expected results for comparison.

Does this seem like a reasonable and useful test procedure? Is anyone
willing to volunteer to write the scripts for it?

Rich