On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 14:03 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > The recommendation is because it takes too much time (over an hour on my > system) and the tests are pretty much valueless.
No more lacking in value from other non-toolchain test suites, surely? I understand that the time it takes to run them is disproportionate to the value of the package, but there's already a warning about the length of time that it'll take to run. All I'm saying is that I don't think the explicit recommendation to avoid the test suite is required (user's can make their own minds up based on the timing note on the page). As an editor, I want users to be able to choose whether or not to run the tests based on suitable information, but when they choose to run them they shouldn't get any test failures if we have a) seen them before and b) have a known fix. The way the automake page is written at present, it will look really odd if I add a patch that fixes the test suite, only for us to then recommend that the tests aren't run. But, if I don't add the patch to the book, folks that want to run the tests will hit the same failure that we already have a fix for. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
