tor 2007-04-12 klockan 23:05 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov:
I think that cppunit should be removed from the source tree (especially
if it is so easy to install and is not for end-users anyway). This step
should not depend on the make check discussion outcome.
We all agree I think.
I think
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 14:29 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
I think you should decide to either:
- keep cppunit in the source tree
or
- have make check fail when its not installed.
I suggest we could:
- not bundle cppunit
- have make check fail if it doesn't detect it
- create a new target
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 13:27 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 12:45 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has not been linked to the cppunit testers, but I have written a
specific test app to check each function and proivide for maula-eye
check
in increments from
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:01 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Running make check (or whatever it is) would run cppunit test cases
if
somebody has cppunit installed and should skip them (with a warning)
if
somebody does not have cppunit installed.
If there is a special make target to force
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 13:27 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 12:45 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has not been linked to the cppunit testers, but I have written a
specific test app to check each function and proivide for maula-eye
check
in increments from
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 13:23 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:01 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Running make check (or whatever it is) would run cppunit test cases
if somebody has cppunit installed and should skip them (with a warning)
if somebody does not have cppunit
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 22:02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
That is good, but I do not think we should require it. Cppunit is a
developer tool. Make check is a user-level reassurance that the
package was built correctly.
I think this is the root of our disagreement. 'make check' to me is not,
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 14:29 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 22:02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
That is good, but I do not think we should require it. Cppunit is a
developer tool. Make check is a user-level reassurance that the
package was built correctly.
...
I think
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 14:29 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 22:02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
That is good, but I do not think we should require it. Cppunit is a
developer tool. Make check is a user-level reassurance that the
package was built correctly.
I think
