Pierre Labastie wrote:
Also I think we have put too much emphasis on tests in the book at a certain time. It was a waste of time, because tests more often reflect upstream inability to fix things than something going really wrong. And it is very unlikely that a particular test show something wrong in a build. Of course, more that 10-20 % of failures should warn about something possibly going wrong, but only "possibly". The present editors team is doing much better in this respect.
I do think that running the regression tests is a good sanity check, but that is probably more applicable to the LFS/BLFS editors than users. When the checks take more than one or two SBU, then users probably should not bother unless they are going to make changes to the code.
I do think that documenting the tests in the book does provide readers a sense of comfort that the package build instructions have been validated.
-- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
