On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're > > building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry > > on". > > Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken, > using experimental features from their language of choice or, simply, > that they are paranoid and couldn't think better ways to annoy people?
Their rationale being that compilers and users screw up, and that detecting a failure before deployment is important for people who care about what programs do. Simple example... Take people who use Roy's broken patches from bug 192403. If you build a program that uses C++ exception handling using such a compiler, it'll compile just fine and then do very weird things at runtime. Test suites catch this, and spare a lot of everyone's time. > > For that matter, I'm strongly inclined to say that for Paludis > > too... > > Getting the build time from 30minutes to an hour or more? And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that generates broken code that would force you to reinstall a working compiler by hand when the package manager gets h0rked. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
