On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > >Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is willing to maintain > >the ipf tests, these should be removed. > > I object to this. If ipf fails its tests, then the fact should be > made clear in the test reports, not hidden by disabling the tests.
Indeed. But only the maintainer knows whether these are "real" bugs or bugs in the tests. I don't know whether ipf tries to maintain binary or configuration compatibility, which seems to be the root of the failures. Frankly, I am not sure even on what is being tested (thus why all tests should be clear and/or heavily commented). > I don't know whether the bugs are in ipf or in the tests, but > either way, removing or disabling the tests seems to me to be > counter-productive. These are not disabled but marked as "bogus". The reports contain a message about the supposition that the "test case is probably broken". Apparently someone else has also reached the same conclusions, given that there was even a specific function to mark ipf-tests as bogus. - Jukka.
