On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:21 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, > > * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:36:49PM CEST: > > > > According to H.Merijn Brand on 10/18/2007 1:43 AM: > > > > > > > > > > Please convince the GNU world to add 'make test' as alias for > > > > > 'make check'. > > > > > > > > It won't work for coreutils, where test is the name of a built program. > > > > That's why the GNU Coding Standards mandate 'make check', but mention > > > > nothing about 'make test'. However, patches to automake are welcome. > > Sorry, but I'm not convinved that this should be done. Either the GNU > Coding Standards should be convinced to list this (which they won't, > because coreutils would suffer), or put `test: check' in your toplevel > Makefile.am. Fine with me, but please do > I don't see an intrinsic advantage of `test' over `check'. maybe because you're only testing GNU packages? I'm normally only building/testing perl stuff, and we/they use 'test' as make test target. Far ages already. Even if I know GNU does not include test as a legal build target, my typical build process for GNU stuff is: # tar xzf Foo-1.3.tar.gz # cd Foo-1.3 # configure --help # configure --prefix=/pro/local --disable-nls # make # make test ... curse loudly ... # make check # make install # rm -rf /pro/local/info /pro/local/share/info for perl/CPAN stuff, that would be # tar xzf Foo-1.3.tar.gz # cd Foo-1.3 # perl Makefile.PL # make # make test # make install UNINST=1 give or take a few edits and README file readings along the way -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, & 11.23, SuSE 10.1 & 10.2, AIX 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
