| 1 |
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Dylan Carlson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue October 26 2004 03:52, Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> As an AMD64 user myself, I'd tend to agree with this. Programming |
| 4 |
>> languages are and should remain an exception. I don't have maketest on, |
| 5 |
>> but for gcc, perl, python, etc, I'd expect it to continue to run the |
| 6 |
>> tests (as I would with glibc). The alternatives are just too unpleasant |
| 7 |
>> to think about, including the one where bugs get filed on the wrong apps |
| 8 |
>> because that's where they appear, while it was the on-site installation |
| 9 |
>> of the language interpreter/compiler used to run/compile them that was |
| 10 |
>> the problem. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'm not advocating disabling tests one way or another. GCC's testing is |
| 13 |
> critical, since it is the Sweet Mother of Everything. Python is critical |
| 14 |
> to Gentoo. I don't offhand know what Python does during compile & install |
| 15 |
> (and I'm not going to remerge it just for this email, ;). Perl is not as |
| 16 |
> vital at the core, but almost always installed because of a dependency |
| 17 |
> somewhere. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I agree with Duncan. Packages that are a basis for many others, such as |
| 20 |
languages and many libraries, should require any tests they include be |
| 21 |
run. I would also put X, KDE, GNOME, and bash in this list as well. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I know a number of people who've been very hostile about perl tests |
| 24 |
being required, due to it not being correctly ported to their platform, |
| 25 |
but everyone that I know who bypassed those tests, who used perl on |
| 26 |
other OSes, was *very* sheepish afterwards (some took a while, because |
| 27 |
they didn't use the borken features at first, but eventually they were |
| 28 |
all sheepish). Turns out, the tests had actually discovered real |
| 29 |
problems that hadn't yet been addressed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ed |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives