Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:20:00 +0100, Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 03:22:07AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:39:57PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 15:00 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> 103-automake:FAIL: t/primary-prefix-invalid-couples.tap 280 - ... >> and >>>>> with the same diagnostic of 'automake -a' >>>>> 103-automake:# FAIL: 1 >>>> >>>> I've just hit this one again. It looks like there's a patch for it at >>>> >> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2013-07/msg00022.html. >> I'll test that in my next build, if you're happy for it to go into >> LFS-7.4-rc2 and to remove the comment about 1 test intermittently failing? >>>> >>>> Ta, >>>> >>>> Matt. >>>> >>> Doesn't apply for me. Not sure why, and I've got enough problems >>> already. Fixing it would be nice (or, heretically, we could tell >>> people not to bother with non-toolchain tests ;-) >>> >> Now that I've got that test build booted [still building bison by >> hand :-( ] I've taken another look - whitespace differences (columns >> offset by two places). Perhaps happened in pasting from the html >> page. Fixed up, rediffed. Untested (although a user on the list >> reported it fixed the problem) but attached in case anyone else >> wants to take a look. > > Sorry Ken, I've been stuck at work all day today, but I've already got > a version tested and passed that I should have informed the list about. > I know there's a recommendation in the book to not run the tests, but > it's the only package that contains a test suite that has such a comment > against it. Yes, the tests take a long time, but they are not dangerous > (as far as I know) and therefore if a user has taken the decision to run > all chapter 6 tests, then these should be run too, IMO.
The recommendation is because it takes too much time (over an hour on my system) and the tests are pretty much valueless. I agree that, other than time, they cause no harm. As a developer, I do run them (so users don't need to). > That said, I'll repeat *again* that I don't see the value in having the > autotools installed in LFS anyway, but I know that's flogging a dead horse. Well, for one thing, they are needed for Xorg (libxcb, mesalib, and x7driver-glamor). I count 14 apps in BLFS that need autotools. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
