On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:16:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > > > > The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single > > > > compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a > > > > 1kb no-op. > > > > Attempting to execute a binary not supported by the host will obviously > > > fail but that is not going to cause the package build to fail > > > automatically. A lot of what you've been saying appears to be > > > predicated on the assumption that it will. > > > In which circumstances would it not cause a failure? > > > dpkg-buildpackage will fail if any command cannot be executed, whether > > that is because the file or directory does not exist or whether it was > > because the file was not executable or the wrong architecture. Whether > > the executable is called by sh, make, libtool or by some other means, > > the build will fail. > > ...and the resulting error is passed back to the rules file (and the > rules file doesn't ignore the result of the command itself, for that > matter). It's not the execution of the binary that's the problem, it's > depending on it succeeding that's the problem. What would be the point of executing a test suite during the build and not making the build fail if the test suite fails? -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature