tcl, expect, dejagnu

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Mon May 12 21:33:15 PDT 2003


On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:45:11PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On May 12, 2003 09:37 pm, Greg Schafer wrote:
> >  - I don't see the value of running the test suites for these 3 pkg's in Ch
> >    5. As mentioned in the hint, there are guaranteed failures. Notably, the
> >    expect testsuite failures look frightening to debug. We only care that
> > we can run the core toolchain testsuites (i.e. gcc, binutils). This also
> > follows up on Zack's suggestion from yesterday.
> 
> How about other make tests that are in chapter 5: coreutils, gzip, findutils, 
> make, grep, sed, gettext, tar, texinfo and bash. Are you suggesting to remove 
> those too and just keep the gcc, binutils and glibc ones?

That is pretty much what I do myself as I tend to focus on the core
toolchain stuff. But the big question is, what is best for the book?

Like I said yesterday, there are pro's and con's for running the testsuites
in Ch 5. Present the facts then let the user decide? Not sure. The
build-time factor is not big for the remaining packages, but is a big
concern for the core toolchain pkg's.

> >  - The current expect build commands look superfluous to me. The hint only
> >    has a simple ./configure; make; make install; and works beautifully for
> >    me. Is this the reason for folk seeing bogus failures? Dunno.
> 
> Certainly worth looking into. The patch should remain though, right?

Yep. I believe so. It gets rid of some intermittent bogus failures for me
and also others.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg01071.html

Greg
-- 
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