Right way to cope with user error in make test?

Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry at codeweavers.com
Mon May 19 01:36:03 CDT 2008

"Steven Edwards" <winehacker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I offered a proposed solution to a whole class of failures and you
> shot it down saying it was the wrong solution for standalone builds. I
> addressed that, your answer is now "If some test fails that doen't
> mean that the build is broken".  But I don't understand the logic. The
> metric should be, if make test fails, the build cannot be assumed
> safe.

The logic is that it's perfectly valid to build Wine without OpenGL or
XML libraries if the user is not intending to run applications depending
on them. If you need them, configure helpfully prints a warning. If you
ignore the warning, that's your problem.

> Maybe its not really broken but without a 100% pass rate there
> is no way to assume anything other than brokenness. Even standalone is
> not a safe test given the current framework as it has 10% failure rate
> on Windows Server 2003. Maybe it passes for you on XP, maybe its
> broken for me on Vista. Nothing is safe to assume while allow whole
> classes of failures. If they really are failures and certain missing
> librares makes a build "broken" then it should not be a soft
> dependency.

If you would closely followed wine-patches mailing list, you would notice
that *a lot* of efforts lately has been spent on making various Wine tests
pass cleanly on different Windows flavours. That very tedious and time
consuming work is being done without any fuss, flaming or self advertisement.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list