On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:22:08PM -0800, Qrux wrote: > > 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> > >>> + > >> [...] > >> > >> 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. > In practice, I find them full of false failures - often, google knows that the particular test always fails, occasionally there is even a fix to make it work or to just drop the failing test. More often, any fix doesn't apply, or doesn't solve the failure. Meanwhile, I've seen all sorts of weird and wonderful bugs in desktop programs over the years - but I've never seen one that was caught by the testsuite.
There is even one package (my notes aren't handy to name it) where the testsuite checks that translations are actually used, and that their XML is correct [ so, it's for the maintainer ] but it's clear it has never been run for that release. If people think they are worthwhile, then I'll keep mentioning them, warts and all. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
