[blfs-dev] Test Suites

Qrux qrux.qed at gmail.com
Thu Feb 16 14:22:08 PST 2012


On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:49 +0000
> Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, ken at linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
>>> +
>>> +    <para>This package does not have a working testsuite.</para>
>>> +
>> 
>> I was originally going to ask to have it minuted that this was
>> where I cracked and told the truth about a testsuite, after some
>> circumlocutions in earlier commits :-)
>> 
>> And  I was going to plead in mitigation that I've had it 'up to
>> here' with packages that need to be installed before their tests
>> will run (or, perhaps, since this is gnome, they expect you to be
>> running the previous stable version).  For this one, I even went
>> back to a gnome session and reinstalled libpeas (the gnome devs
>> recommend seed as a dep for libpeas : that is circular, since seed
>> requires peas), but still there were two failures in the seed
>> tests.
>> 
>> But instead, I'm going to suggest that we just stop mentioning
>> testsuites in BLFS.
> 
> Or at least make it optional?

In principle, I think testsuites are awesome; I like the confidence they give that the system works as advertised.

I mean, if you're compiling from source, you need some sort of validation that the system works.  I'm guessing you've all run into some practical downside.  What is the case against them in BLFS?  I would think a system-built-from-source would want some sort of validation.  For my own scripts, I solve the problem by adding comments in front of the tests.  When I'm debugging my scripts, the comments stay in.  When I'm making a "master" build (to deploy across VMs, for example), I do the full tested build.

	Q




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list