test/ ?
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Fri Jul 14 07:05:42 PDT 2006
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 04:55 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 00:49 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 09:01 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 3 programs are being built by default, all others are implemented as
>>>>> EXTRA_PROGRAMS, i.e. they are not being built by default, only if
>>>>> explicitly requested "make <program>"
>>>
>>>> Applied + removed some things that dont make any sense at all for
>>>> apt-rpm
>>>
>>> You've removed all EXTRA_PROGRAMS, but didn't remove EXTRA_PROGRAMS's
>>> initialization.
>>>
>>> The patch below also remove this (currently unnecessary) initialization.
>>
>> I was thinking more like moving (all) the current tests to EXTRA_PROGRAMS,
>> none of them make sense to build by default. That's why I left it there
>> for now.
> Well, this doesn't make much sense.
>
> Theoretically a "testsuite" would consist of 2 different test programs:
> - Link/build test programs (Does it still compile/link).
> These would be noinst_PROGRAMS (Not run).
>
> - Feature tests/programs to be run as part of a testsuite.
> These would be check_PROGRAMS (Run during "make check").
>
> EXTRA_PROGRAMS would rarely make sense.
Theoretically I agree :) It's just that none of the *current* material in
test/ classifies as worth building by default IMO.
If this was just pure libapt-pkg library source then some of the things
could perhaps be considered as useful as "does it build+link" tests but as
apt-get, apt-cache etc already fill that part of the testing.
- Panu -
More information about the Apt-Rpm
mailing list