Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
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.
You are supposed to test proposed patches for opened bugs before
deploying them in any way.
Your "example", that btw is a quite low try to smear Roy, proves nothing.
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.
You (upstream) are supposed to test and early users are supposed to
check their bleeding edge stuff is working if they care enough.
People using released programs that are in stable shouldn't have to do
that. If your code doesn't survive a gcc release usually it's the code
being wrong most of the times.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
