[blfs-dev] Test Suites

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Thu Feb 16 14:57:35 PST 2012


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:22:08PM -0800, Qrux wrote:
> 
> 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>
> >>> +
> >> 
[...]
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
 In practice, I find them full of false failures - often, google
knows that the particular test always fails, occasionally there is
even a fix to make it work or to just drop the failing test.  More
often, any fix doesn't apply, or doesn't solve the failure.
Meanwhile, I've seen all sorts of weird and wonderful bugs in
desktop programs over the years - but I've never seen one that
was caught by the testsuite.

 There is even one package (my notes aren't handy to name it) where
the testsuite checks that translations are actually used, and that
their XML is correct [ so, it's for the maintainer ] but it's clear
it has never been run for that release.

 If people think they are worthwhile, then I'll keep mentioning
them, warts and all.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list