On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:24:46PM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote: > 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..).
This is correct, but I consider my patch orthogonal to converting (some of) the tests into FATE targets. The tools and examples should also be kept compiling and they are unrelated to FATE. Maybe I could add fate and all as dependencies to the check target, then running 'make check' would compile everything and run all tests together. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
