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 this is the root of our disagreement. 'make check' to me is not, > and never has been a tool for users: It does give reassurance that the > package is built correctly, but its primarily for developers. I've never > encountered an open source piece of software yet that considered the > primary users of 'make check' to be the end user.
Perl's CPAN is one example. A user cannot normally install a module using CPAN or CPANPLUS tools if the module fails "make check". > I think you should decide to either: > - keep cppunit in the source tree > or > - have make check fail when its not installed. 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. I think others should decide whether "make check" should fail if there is no cppunit installed. Thank you, Alex.
