On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:49 +0000 > Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: >>> + >>> + <para>This package does not have a working testsuite.</para> >>> + >> >> I was originally going to ask to have it minuted that this was >> where I cracked and told the truth about a testsuite, after some >> circumlocutions in earlier commits :-) >> >> And I was going to plead in mitigation that I've had it 'up to >> here' with packages that need to be installed before their tests >> will run (or, perhaps, since this is gnome, they expect you to be >> running the previous stable version). For this one, I even went >> back to a gnome session and reinstalled libpeas (the gnome devs >> recommend seed as a dep for libpeas : that is circular, since seed >> requires peas), but still there were two failures in the seed >> tests. >> >> But instead, I'm going to suggest that we just stop mentioning >> testsuites in BLFS. > > Or at least make it optional?
In principle, I think testsuites are awesome; I like the confidence they give that the system works as advertised. I mean, if you're compiling from source, you need some sort of validation that the system works. I'm guessing you've all run into some practical downside. What is the case against them in BLFS? I would think a system-built-from-source would want some sort of validation. For my own scripts, I solve the problem by adding comments in front of the tests. When I'm debugging my scripts, the comments stay in. When I'm making a "master" build (to deploy across VMs, for example), I do the full tested build. Q -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page