Cyril Roelandt <tipec...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On 02/04/2013 11:32 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Cyril Roelandt<tipec...@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> This patch adds tcsh. It was a bit hard to make the testsuite work: I
>>> disabled a
>>> few tests that I could not get working during the "check" phase, but it
>>> should
>>> not be a problem, since they work fine with the installed binary.
>>
>> Good!
>
> Not so good: it's way too weird that some tests fail when running
> "make check", it'd be great to understand why.
If it’s deterministic, that shouldn’t be too difficult. Most likely a
/bin/sh or similar issue, no?
>>
>>> + (inputs
>>> + `(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
>>> + ("coreutils" ,coreutils)
>>> + ("ncurses" ,ncurses)
>>> + ("patch/skip-tests"
>>> + ,(search-patch "tcsh-fix-autotest.patch"))))
>>
>> In general, rebuilding the build infrastructure with Autoconf&
>> co. should be avoided for several reasons: we may get it wrong, and it
>> will yield a rebuild on every Autoconf update.
>>
>> Could this be easily avoided here? (I suspect you already tried...)
>> One option would be to make the patch against ‘testsuite’ instead of
>> against the .at files, with the risk of it no longer being applicable on
>> the next release.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> It would make sense patch the .at files, generate a new "testsuite"
> file, and patch "testsuite" when running make check. But it would be
> nice to keep the *.at files somewhere to quickly regenerate the patch
> against "testsuite" when a new version of tcsh comes out. Can we do
> that ?
Seems tricky to me. Better keep your current version than do that, I
think.
So what about patching ‘testsuite’ directly? Did it seem feasible here?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
