On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > Not at all. If it's optional, it's likely that many packages will not > > > have it. Also, if the build system doesn't use it by default, it is > > > likely that many of those targets are never tested and don't actually > > > work. > > > > We already have regular tests for things that aren't caught by the > > normal build processes, this could be checked in a similar fashion. > > We could check if an automake upgrade would produce many FTBFSs, if the > packages are already build-depending on automake. However, most > packages currently don't do that, and it's in the general case not > possible (AFAICS) to run it for them automatically.
If there is some standardised rules target that can be used to regenerate those files, it shouldn't be that hard to make the current tools run such tests. I'm wondering how to properly deal with different versions of for instance automake, and at first guess I would think it should just use the current default version. And that would make that target useless for people who actually build depend on some specific version. I'm having my doubts that having a new rules target just so that we can run archive wide tests is a good idea. Specially if they'd do the same thing but with different versions in different targets. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
