Hello. On 13/12/16 14:09, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Stefan Schmidt <ste...@osg.samsung.com> > wrote: >> Hello. > > [snip] > >> I fully agree (even have native IPv6 here) but we need to be defensive >> what we expect to be available in our test suite. > > Why? It is testing, I agree we should need to be defensive in the > implementation and interfaces where EFL might run in stranger > environments,
If the implementation would handle this all gracefully the test would never had been a problem. :) but a test that fails on a machine that doesn't > handle IPv6 seems fine to me as long as it is rare enough. We assume IPv6 now, we assume a working internet connection, we assume udev for eeze testing, we assume a working dbus setup, in some cases we assume a file system which supports extended attributes, etc... If it is complicated to run make check we will have even less people running it. It should be the other way around. I guess I could look at anybody here who contributed a few patches this year and see someone who broke make check. If it is to complicated or fails for some reason people will just stop using it. regards Stefan Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
