From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16832 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 18:25:11 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 18:25:11 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CZCgZ-0005LM-1J for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:25:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 1464 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2004 18:25:10 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 6358 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 18:25:10 +0000 From: Rumen Yotov Reply-To: rumen_yotov@dir.bg To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1101801287.8811.9.camel@localhost> References: <1101753879.32291.11.camel@mymach.qrypto.org> <64652.216.125.51.60.1101761343.squirrel@216.125.51.60> <1101790229.14250.29.camel@mymach.qrypto.org> <1101768789.8811.1.camel@localhost> <610e3466041130071933f743a0@mail.gmail.com> <1101801287.8811.9.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:24:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1101839096.14182.4.camel@mymach.qrypto.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES_maketest_question X-Archives-Salt: ed7d6fc1-b036-4435-9f13-03ac422290a1 X-Archives-Hash: 3026b242f0189934dc3de5224fadc9cb Hi, On =D0=B2=D1=82, 2004-11-30 at 15:54 +0800, Mike Gardiner wrote: > > Personally, I use it because it gives me extra checks that a package > > is working correctly before I merge into my system and potentially > > break things. Since I am mostly using non-x86 this becomes more > > likely. >=20 > So peace of mind is your motivation? >=20 In my case not just peace of mind but looking for an extra functionality make test could give, but not extra problems. > > Btw, if we (as users) run into a package that fails maketest, is openin= g > > a bug the right thing to do? >=20 > I can't speak for all packages, but for GNOME packages, we'll take > patches you can provide that fix "make test" errors, but we don't have > time to look into fixing the tests ourselves. >=20 > Unfortunately, "make test" isn't uniformly adhered to upstream, and in > my experience, the tests that are conducted with it are often outdated, > and/or unmaintained. In these cases, "make test" doesn't provide any > indication of the state of the software - if it's > runnable/testable/linkable/however the tests are conducted. >=20 That's what i also suspected. > This said, I'm not aware of (any?) Gentoo policy/stance on this, if > anyone can fill me in on that, please do. >=20 > Mike Gardiner > (Obz) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list >=20 Thanks. --=20 Rumen Yotov -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list