Patch to fix BZ #1597

Randy McMurchy LFS-User at mcmurchy.com
Thu Aug 4 16:50:36 PDT 2005


Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:30 CST:

> Perhaps I'm being to anal about it, but I see little to no value in
> building binaries, testing them, then wiping them and building new
> binaries. IOW, it doesn't test anything other than the _possibility_
> that the next binaries _might_ be good because the first ones were good.

It's the best we've got. One of two things has to happen to close the
bug. Run the test suite the only way we can (which, by the way, is a
very good indication that the package builds in the manner intended by
the author), or close the bug as WONTFIX.

Which should it be?

I would think that because the package will at least build binaries
that pass what the Author feels are adequate tests, this is better
than no tests at all.

Don't you agree?

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
18:47:00 up 124 days, 18:20, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.23, 0.26



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list