make check silliness

Matthew Burgess ca9mbu at hermes.sunderland.ac.uk
Wed Jul 23 03:52:01 PDT 2003


On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:46:04 +0000 (UTC)
gschafer at zip.com.au (Greg Schafer) wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:20:48AM +0000, Christophe Devine wrote:
> >   Hello,
> > 
> > Although I agree that doing some "make check" is certainly useful
> > in chapter 5 when we're preparing the toolchain, I really don't
> > see the point of running "make check" through all of chapter 6, as
> > I've built dozens of perfectly running LFS systems without running
> > any "make check" command at all, in the (good) old days of LFS 3.x
> > and LFS 4.0. Opinions ?
> 
> That sort of "works for me" attitude is completely naive. Please read
> the plfs hint (in full detail).
> 
> And to make matters worse, you have it completely arse about anyway
> :-) If anything, the checks that REALLY matter are the ones in Ch 6.
> Afterall, we end up throwing away the Ch 5 files, do we not?

Which just goes to show that "make check" is really needed in *both*
chapters.  I certainly wouldn't bother wasting time compiling chapter 6
with a b0rked chapter 5 toolchain, but I may not know it's subtely (or
not so subtely) b0rked if I don't run the chapter 5 make checks.  Having
said that, just because the chapter 5 stuff passes it's make checks
doesn't necessarily mean that chapter 6 will pass it's checks either,
right?

Regards,

Matt.


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list