| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're |
| 4 |
> > building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry |
| 5 |
> > on". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken, |
| 8 |
> using experimental features from their language of choice or, simply, |
| 9 |
> that they are paranoid and couldn't think better ways to annoy people? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Their rationale being that compilers and users screw up, and that |
| 12 |
detecting a failure before deployment is important for people who care |
| 13 |
about what programs do. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Simple example... Take people who use Roy's broken patches from bug |
| 16 |
192403. If you build a program that uses C++ exception handling using |
| 17 |
such a compiler, it'll compile just fine and then do very weird things |
| 18 |
at runtime. Test suites catch this, and spare a lot of everyone's time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > For that matter, I'm strongly inclined to say that for Paludis |
| 21 |
> > too... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Getting the build time from 30minutes to an hour or more? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that generates |
| 26 |
broken code that would force you to reinstall a working compiler by |
| 27 |
hand when the package manager gets h0rked. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives