On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:59:47 +1200
Simon Geard wrote:
> And that's fine - I'm not trying to convince everyone else that running
> tests is unnecessary. I just don't find it worth my time, running tests
> for every piece of software I install.
Same here. If it's broken I'll find out when I try to
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Plummer wrote:
> Simon:
> That is one heck of an assumption... If you assume everyone else does
> their job properly, I have a used car you might be interested in...
Oh, I know it's not necessarily accurate, don't get me wrong. But as I
said, if I don't tru
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
>> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
>
> It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
> benefit - so
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
benefit - so when writing code, it's ess
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
benefit - so when writing code, it's esse
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more o
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more o
On 06/16/2011 05:30 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> robert wrote:
>> cannot get beyond this:
>>
>> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1'
>> make: *** [check] Error 2
>> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more o
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Webmaster wrote:
> > I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
> > check failed you can do nothing.
>
> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
> many a manager say more or less the same thing
On vr, 2011-06-17 at 22:12 +0800, Webmaster wrote:
> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
> check failed you can do nothing.
If the check passed you know you have succeeded thus far, if it failed
you might have made a mistake. I'd rather _know_ something is wrong th
Webmaster wrote:
> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
> check failed you can do nothing.
Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
many a manager say more or less the same thing.
Mac
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,
I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the check
failed you can do nothing.
-- Original --
From: "robert";
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 00:33 AM
To: "lfs-support";
Subject: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1
cannot get beyond this:
make
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:29:19 -0500
robert wrote:
> What additional info should I post?
About 20 lines or so before it _first_ says error.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
robert wrote:
> cannot get beyond this:
>
> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1'
> make: *** [check] Error 2
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-mqueue
On 06/16/2011 02:37 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> robert wrote:
>> cannot get beyond this:
>>
>> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1'
>> make: *** [check] Error 2
>> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
robert wrote:
> cannot get beyond this:
>
> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1'
> make: *** [check] Error 2
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-mqueue
17 matches
Mail list logo
