[redhat-lspp] LSPP/RBACPP requirements v.002

[serue at us.ibm.com]

Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds at tycho.nsa.gov):
> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 13:46 -0500, serue at us.ibm.com wrote:
> > Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds at tycho.nsa.gov):
> > > - Also on "Self tests", I have to wonder if the LTP is itself a
> > > hindrance to getting people to contribute to the SELinux tests.  My own
> > > experience has been that it is much more painful to build and run the
> > > selinux tests through that test harness than through our original simple
> > > perl Test-based one, as well as more painful to track down the source of
> > > any failures when using it.
> > 
> > Agreed.  I wonder whether it would be feasible to keep just the contents
> > of the ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite directory as a
> > separate tarball (on sf.net or tresys.com?) with a simple runme.pl
> > script to compile and run itself.  Then whenever testcases are added,
> > integrate them into the ltp subsystem (which by a quick look at
> > the makefiles should be trivial) and occasionally copy back into the full
> > ltp tree.
> 
> I'm not sure how much that would help.  The original testsuite was
> written to directly use the perl Test module, but that was all discarded
> by the ltp port for the native ltp harness.

Wouldn't the important thing be the ability to quickly download just
the selinux tests, and compile, load policy, and run tests, as

	make
	make load
	make test

or something like that?  Is there actually some inherent value in
using the perl Test module, such that we should consider going back
to that?

-serge