On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Dan Winship wrote: > On 04/26/2013 10:12 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 08:46 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > >> You are not going to get me to buy eagerly into a new installed tests > >> scheme for glib if it means that I have to give up make check. > > > > Well, would you be OK with: > > > > $ jhbuild make > > $ gnome-desktop-testing-runner glib > > I want "make distcheck" to still run all of my tests, to guarantee that > everything works correctly when built from a tarball, not just when > built from git.
That's going to be a high bar to jump; but I suppose it makes sense to have both during the transition and give downstreams time to teach their build systems about revision control. > It forces the code into the "you don't have futexes" fallback mode, so > that we can test that that codepath works, even on machines that do have > futexes. We absolutely want to include that as part of the installed > tests too. Mmm...but in a true black box model, that would require *installing* /usr/share/glib/gbitlock.c. In the way I have gjs/installed-tests set up, a build of the installed tests, even though it uses the same git repository, is not supposed to use the gjs source code. It's just a way to avoid doubling the number of git repositories. > I understand the win of installed tests, but that doesn't mean that > "make check" tests don't have their own set of wins. I want both. Ok, I will work on it sometime this cycle. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
