> On 5/04/2017, at 11:25, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-7, François wrote: > > With the current system you could install and then remove > some essential files manually and the doctesting framework > would still try to use it. It is installed according to the > packaging system after all. runtime testing would have a better > chance to avoid broken packages. > > Hm, I don't see that as an advantage. A broken package shouldn't be just > avoided, it should be reported, so that it can be repaired or uninstalled. > Just silently avoiding broken functionality makes it harder to diagnose. >
Ha, I was thinking of a different kind of broken. I was thinking of user mistake, you are thinking of systemic problems. I guess the doctesting framework could output a list of software not tested because it thinks it is absent or not working. A discrepancy could be spotted but that is not as direct, I agree. François -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
