Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:05:43 -0400 From: Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Peter Holm <peter@holm.cc> Subject: Re: ATF work Message-ID: <20140404190543.GA652@mastodon.meroh.net> In-Reply-To: <CAGHfRMBKcfK_AD-bwUo3ifVp1qwoPfnoEA9z=Pp59RNAoeyW_A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140402085349.GA61802@x2.osted.lan> <CAOtMX2gGn5NMpvSR0FF=z70cUCDn=vTQvVWo2mXk8t9UrNKzuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHfRMBKcfK_AD-bwUo3ifVp1qwoPfnoEA9z=Pp59RNAoeyW_A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just a couple of minor comments: On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:07:04AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > (Just to fill in some context on some of the items here) > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > > lib/libc/tests/net/Makefile has one tested comment out with the > > comment "test uses rump". Would it be possible instead to leave the > > test in the build, but put "require.progs rump_server" in the relevant > > test cases' heads? > > Probably carryover from NetBSD that should be pushed back to NetBSD. Why? rump is "standard" in NetBSD so that's probably not going to fly. It'd be like saying "require.progs = ls". I'd not keep commented code in the tree. There is no point: by the time FreeBSD gets rump (if ever, but it'd take a really long time regardless), the borrowed code may have significantly changed from upstream. And if rump is never imported, this code will remain commented out forever. > > lib/libc/tests/gen/posix_spawn/Makefile contains commented out code. > > Probably incompatibilities between FreeBSD and NetBSD. Then, like above, remove the code... unless the tests should work in FreeBSD but don't yet, in which case marking them as "expected failures" and accompanying them with a PR would be better. Cheers
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140404190543.GA652>