On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:02:25 +0000
Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:

> part the first: background (I seem to have lost any ability to
> precis things - I blame building 109 gnome-3/related packages)
> 
>  For a lot of packages, we have the stock:
> 
> "To test the results, issue: make check."
> 
>  Personally, I very rarely test packages in my own after-LFS builds
> (dhcp/dhclient, gpg, and a few exotic audio libs [libsamplerate,
> libsndfile, fftw]).  I sometimes run the testsuite for others when I
> first build them, but in general it doesn't seem to buy me anything
> and often it's clearly aimed at the developer (yes, I spent *hours*
> running the gimp-print tests when I started out, but they never told
> me whether that version would actually work for me!).

I agree. The only time I ever run make check or whatever is if I'm
working on a page for BLFS. Otherwise it's just a waste of time that
tells me nothing. The only way to know if a package works on not is to
use it. The testsuite tells me nothing.

> part the second: questions on testing
> 
> 1. Where a testsuite is designed to be used by the upstream
> developers and doesn't compile any test programs, should we even
> mention it, or should we add some boilerplate like "the testsuite is
> intended for the package's developers" ?

Sounds good to me.

> 2. Is it worth differentiating the varieties of no-testsuite
> packages ?  Some don't know what to do for 'make check', others
> happily run through all their subdirectories doing nothing.?

If it has a make check target that doesn't do anything just say it
doesn't have a testsuite.

> ĸen - currently running metacity as his wm : can't say I like it,
> but it's usable.  The wallpaper (sundown dunes) with an old version
> of xsnow running in front of it amuses me.  Perhaps I'm already too
> far gone for this caper.

Still running xsnow? I stopped 2 weeks ago, but then I'm bitter and
cynical ;)

Andy
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to