On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 19:25 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 03:45:54 Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 18:02 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Hmm. Ambivalent. I've always liked that 'make' compiles
> > 'make check' has nothing to do but actually run the tests.
> I actually like the build/dependency logic proposed. But I don't like
> the fact people are skipping make check. We are really trying to keep
> make check clean, so that any failure really means something is wrong
> either with elfutils itself or the toolchain used. Such issues really
> should be reported and fixed whenever possible.
> Does gentoo keep build logs, do they include the make check output?
> If not, what is the reason for wanting to skip make check?
Gentoo users (usually) build everything from source. also running all the
packages' tests all the time is wasteful and kind of pointless. but since
it's optional, we do have some users that do it (and so we see reports when
`make check` fails), and in those cases the log files are available and we
triage things then.
I tweaked your patch to apply to current HEAD and applied it. But only
because I feel using check_PROGRAMS is technically more correct than
noinst_PROGRAMS in this case. I also tweaked the commit message to make
this clear. In the elfutils case running the tests really is not
pointless. If any test FAILs against the currently used toolchain or for
your arch we really want to know about it.