Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/03/06 08:46 CST: > Thanks for the reply, but this wasn't exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, I suppose I need to rephrase. How about: I think that whatever order provides the best test suite coverage is the way to go. Dan, you're asking questions that unless you did these tests yourself, you don't fully understand (or know) what all is being lost when you say "not as good of test coverage". I know I don't fully understand what is being lost. If this makes me unqualified to answer the question, then say so. However, can it be put in layman's terms? In previous builds (the current build order), there were these tests: Autoconf: ## ------------- ## ## Test results. ## ## ------------- ## 172 tests were successful. 11 tests were skipped. Automake: ================== All 4 tests passed ================== and ======================================================= All 509 tests behaved as expected (3 expected failures) (58 tests were not run) ======================================================= How do the results from the new build order compare to this? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 08:48:00 up 17 days, 16:57, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.16 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
