[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch
From: |
Josh Bressers |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:04:13 -0400 |
>
> address@hidden said:
> > See the test directory in the nmh CVS. I put that together quite some time
> > ago, and I've gotten no feedback. It would be nice if someone else could
> > give it a whirl to ensure the README is correct and it's not too confusing.
>
> Read the README...
>
> How is this expected to be expanded? I'd expect new cases to want to bring
> crafted messages...
This is something that does need work I agree. I was thinking that the
best way is probably for each test to also carry an mbox file with it, that
gets inc'd. The current framework is meant to be a start, sadly it's just
not gone anywhere in a long time.
>
> Doing the separate compile in the setup-test is not a great idea, imho. It'd
> like to test what I just compiled, with the ./configure options I intend on
> using in the target environment. I guess --prefix=$TEMPDIR is the reason, but
> it really breaks the idea... (not sure about gentoo's test target, but it
> _seems_ it wants to test the compiled-for-target version)
>
Yes, this is an issue, I agree. I'm not sure how to best solve this
problem. I'm open to ideas here.
Thanks for taking a look.
--
JB
- [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Anders Eriksson, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Peter Maydell, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Josh Bressers, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Peter Maydell, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Anders Eriksson, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Josh Bressers, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Anders Eriksson, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch, Anders Eriksson, 2008/04/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld() patch,
Josh Bressers <=