HEADS UP: importing kyua into the base system

[Chris]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 21:19:17 -0500 Kyle Evans kevans at freebsd.org said

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:14 PM Chris <bsd-lists at bsdforge.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:48:29 +0000 Brooks Davis brooks at freebsd.org said
> >
> > > I'll be importing kyua and it's dependency lutok into the base system
> > > this week.  Integrating it into the FreeBSD build system will make it
> > > available by default which is especially valuable on emerging
> > > architectures were we aren't building packages yet (e.g. riscv).
> > >
> > From the wiki (https://github.com/jmmv/kyua/wiki/About)
> >
> > Use cases: New system installation:
> > ...
> > When setting up a new server with brand-new hardware, it's very desirable
> > to ensure a minimum stability of the operating system that runs on top and
> > how it interacts with the hardware.
> > erm... *minimum* stability of the operating system?!
> > If this is as mistaken as it appears. Someone(tm) might want to run kyua
> > against the wiki. ;)
> >
> 
> I believe the point it's trying to make it is that tests aren't
> all-inclusive; they will miss things or induce little stress, but
> they're a great smoketest to rule out most of the basic issues. You
> can't really make much stronger claims than this about the stability
> of the system based on running a test suite, unless we're talking
> stress2 style suites.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to knock kyua. But the way I read that
sentence seemed to me to be counter to the message they wanted to get across.
Maybe something like;
When setting up a new server with brand-new hardware, it's very desirable
to ensure a minimum _impact on the_ stability of the operating system that
runs on top and how it interacts with the hardware.
might have sounded more positive.
Anyway. It read funny to me. So somehow thought it worth a mention.

--Chris