| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
On вт, 2004-11-30 at 15:54 +0800, Mike Gardiner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Personally, I use it because it gives me extra checks that a package |
| 4 |
> > is working correctly before I merge into my system and potentially |
| 5 |
> > break things. Since I am mostly using non-x86 this becomes more |
| 6 |
> > likely. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So peace of mind is your motivation? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
In my case not just peace of mind but looking for an extra functionality |
| 11 |
make test could give, but not extra problems. |
| 12 |
> > Btw, if we (as users) run into a package that fails maketest, is opening |
| 13 |
> > a bug the right thing to do? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I can't speak for all packages, but for GNOME packages, we'll take |
| 16 |
> patches you can provide that fix "make test" errors, but we don't have |
| 17 |
> time to look into fixing the tests ourselves. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Unfortunately, "make test" isn't uniformly adhered to upstream, and in |
| 20 |
> my experience, the tests that are conducted with it are often outdated, |
| 21 |
> and/or unmaintained. In these cases, "make test" doesn't provide any |
| 22 |
> indication of the state of the software - if it's |
| 23 |
> runnable/testable/linkable/however the tests are conducted. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
That's what i also suspected. |
| 26 |
> This said, I'm not aware of (any?) Gentoo policy/stance on this, if |
| 27 |
> anyone can fill me in on that, please do. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Mike Gardiner |
| 30 |
> (Obz) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
Thanks. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rumen Yotov <rumen_yotov@×××.bg> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives