Matthew Sachs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How many of you have packages which have test suites (make check,
for instance) which it would be useful to run as part of the
buildfink build?
I know gmp has one which I'm often asked to run.
If a significant number of packages have these,
Hello, I found that Mac OS X Fink port os mldonkey is
not up to date. Can any of your performs this update.
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/mldonkey
Greetings.
__
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:08, Sebastien Maret wrote:
Matthew Sachs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a significant number of packages have [test suites], perhaps
it's worth
adding a way to specify it in the .info file (CheckScript?) . I
could implement that feature and hook into it in buildfink
As a package maintainer I would like to see it invoked with option -
T like fink -KkT rebuild package_name. Once I figure out how to
run the tests and put the instructions in the .info file, I can then
easily run them every time the package is upgraded. This would be a
lot simpler than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
As a package maintainer I would like to see it invoked with option -
T like fink -KkT rebuild package_name. Once I figure out how to
run the tests and put the instructions in the .info file, I can
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:42:08PM -0400, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
As a package maintainer I would like to see it invoked with option -
T like fink -KkT rebuild package_name. Once I figure out how to
run the tests and put the instructions in
There are also several different standards for even what command runs
the tests. I guess 'make check' is the autotools standard, but lots of
auto*-using packagers don't know that and have custom-written 'make
test'. And the perl world long ago standardized on 'make test' (and we
have a
David Fang wrote:
Don't forget the fact that test-suites can add more dependencies, e.g.
gcc requiring dejagnu and expect. A TestDepends/MaintainerDepends field
might be useful.
Ooh, that's a good point. This is starting to turn into a full-blown
Feature. :)
--
Benjamin Reed a.k.a.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:56:52PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
There are also several different standards for even what command runs
the tests. I guess 'make check' is the autotools standard, but lots of
auto*-using packagers don't know that and have custom-written 'make
test'. And the perl
Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:56:52PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
There are also several different standards for even what command runs
the tests. I guess 'make check' is the autotools standard, but lots of
auto*-using packagers don't know that and have
David Fang wrote:
Don't forget the fact that test-suites can add more dependencies, e.g.
gcc requiring dejagnu and expect. A TestDepends/MaintainerDepends field
might be useful.
Ooh, that's a good point. This is starting to turn into a full-blown
Feature. :)
TestConflicts, anyone?
On 28 Aug 2006, at 23:50, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:42:08PM -0400, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
As a package maintainer I would like to see it invoked with
option -
T like fink -KkT rebuild package_name. Once I figure out how
12 matches
Mail list logo
