On 06/29/2011 11:06 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:42:15PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> --- a/Makefile >>>> +++ b/Makefile >>>> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ distclean:: >>>> config: >>>> $(SRC_PATH)/configure $(value LIBAV_CONFIGURATION) >>>> >>>> -check: checkheaders >>>> +check: alltools checkheaders examples testprogs >>> >>> Why? >> >> This is supposed to be a convenient target that developers can run to >> make sure they have not broken compilation of targets besides "all". >> >> It might either include fate or be made part of fate (eventually). > > The various test programs should be compiled and *run* as individual > fate tests, not merely built in bulk like this.
+1. Fate basically replaced these built-in tests as the primary test system without taking most of them into account. They tend to be unmaintained, and having them in Fate would give a big red flag (or yellow flag) that something is wrong. It also might be an incentive to improve some of them (e.g. why do we have snow and h264 tests? we should instead have separate tests for dwt, exp golomb, etc..). -Justin _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
