Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:30 CST: > Perhaps I'm being to anal about it, but I see little to no value in > building binaries, testing them, then wiping them and building new > binaries. IOW, it doesn't test anything other than the _possibility_ > that the next binaries _might_ be good because the first ones were good.
It's the best we've got. One of two things has to happen to close the bug. Run the test suite the only way we can (which, by the way, is a very good indication that the package builds in the manner intended by the author), or close the bug as WONTFIX. Which should it be? I would think that because the package will at least build binaries that pass what the Author feels are adequate tests, this is better than no tests at all. Don't you agree? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:47:00 up 124 days, 18:20, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.23, 0.26 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
