On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 22:02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > That is good, but I do not think we should require it. Cppunit is a > developer tool. "Make check" is a user-level reassurance that the > package was built correctly.
I think this is the root of our disagreement. 'make check' to me is not, and never has been a tool for users: It does give reassurance that the package is built correctly, but its primarily for developers. I've never encountered an open source piece of software yet that considered the primary users of 'make check' to be the end user. > If cppunit is installed, "make check" > should use it (although it would be nice to disable those checks with > an > environment variable or some such). If cppunit is not available, "make > check" should succeed with a warning. > > These are just me thoughts and recommendations. I am fine with > requiring > cppunit for "make check" if folks think that is a good idea. I think its an appalling idea that almost all of the tests of the new functionality in squid3 be disabled if someone happens to not have cppunit installed. *THIS* is why cppunit is in the source distribution at all. I think you should decide to either: - keep cppunit in the source tree or - have make check fail when its not installed. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
