Collin Funk <collin.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > That reminds me though, Simon is there any specific reason Inetutils > 'make check' doesn't also run Gnulib's checks? I think it is better to > include them to better verify the programs work correctly. And hopefully > catch Gnulib bugs when possible.
In my experience, adding gnulib self-tests to projects lead to a maintainance cost to debug gnulib self-tests failures, which are rarely of importance to the core project. Most usages of gnulib consumes a very tiny fraction of the API, but the gnulib self-test excercise all of the APIs. A fine-grained mechanism to add gnulib workarounds on demand would be nice, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The above is my old experience, so things may have changed these days. Shall we enable it for inetutils to see how things play out? I find myself with little time to look into such problems, but I'm happy that there is now a number of people providing patches which allows me to simply ignore some e-mails I cannot find time to reply to. Sometimes simply having reports without answers is actually better than nothing. Btw, if enable it would be nice to add a simple instruction to the README saying how to run 'make check' with gnulib self-tests disabled. Is there any agreed on practice to achieve that? Primary to allow people to bypass gnulib self-checks in case they get stuck in an infinite loop (which used to happen not too rarely a couple of years ago at least). /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
