Matt Burgess wrote: > 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.
OK, add the patch. We can leave off the recommendation. I think Approximate build time: less than 0.1 SBU (34.1 SBU with tests) says enough. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
