On 5/31/2011 12:35 AM, Don Clugston wrote: > On 31 May 2011 03:34, Brad Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >> While I haven't developed d1 in ages, it's roughly how I experimented with >> it back in the day. I actually don't >> understand why you hate it so much or where you see complication. What's >> "the correct place" mean to you? It's all a >> matter of the dmd.conf file, which is easy to setup to match any >> configuration. > > No, it isn't. The test suite insists on running ../src/dmd. > The "correct place" to me is the same arrangement as a release. I > don't see any reason for there to be a difference between a snapshot, > a beta, and a release. > In particular, I don't like the test suite having a hard-coded path > which *cannot* be used with an official release.
If the three makefiles had a cohesive 'install' target, I might agree with you, but as there's no cohesive 'build a directory of the release artifacts' to any of the makefiles, it's a weak argument. The path to dmd has a default value, just like every other part of the three make files. But it's easily overridden if you want to, just like every other part of the three make files: make DMD=/path/to/any/working/dmd or make DMD=dmd if you want your path to do all the heavy lifting. Where's the problem? >> Shrug. I'm a huge fan of test in place _then_ install. > > I don't know how you can test properly without "installing"? I test > lots of stuff other than the test suite. Not sure how to respond to that other than, "I too test more than just the dmd test suite." I know you're smart enough to know that with a working dmd, it really doesn't matter where it's located. I also test with 2 or 3 fully separate build trees and have no intention of having to worry about which copy is in /usr/local/bin or whatever at any point in time. That's just asking for mistakes when testing. >> But do whatever works for you. I'm not trying to impose >> anything on anyone, just showing how I do it and how easy it is. > > Actually, you _are_ imposing. The way you've set up is, as far as I > can tell, the ONLY way it can run. > Basically I have to do a huge hack to get it to work at all, and it's > just not worth it. The test suite is really badly behaved. See above, it's a default, a starting point, but far from so fixed in place it can't be used in any other way. > Which is why in practice I use Walter's test suite (copying the files > out of the test directory and then running them is far less painful, > and _much_ quicker). > I suspect that Walter has been doing something similar, as well. > It really seems that so far, NOBODY has been using the test suite, and > I don't think that's an accident. It's really a shame. What's a shame, to me, is that you've done nothing to help improve it, just criticize. I'd happily review pull requests to improve any part of the dmd test suite, any makefiles that are part of any of the three packages, and the auto-tester. Don't like it? Suggest (or preferably provide) concrete, functional, working changes. I really really don't understand why you're projecting such a degree of anger/ire here. It's like I've kicked your puppy or something. Sigh, Brad _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
