[1700] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: testing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Jaspan)
Mon Sep 2 19:09:58 1996
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 19:09:51 -0400
From: "Barry Jaspan" <bjaspan@MIT.EDU>
To: raeburn@cygnus.com
Cc: tlyu@MIT.EDU, tytso@MIT.EDU, krbdev@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <tx17mqhiclv.fsf@cygnus.com> (message from Ken Raeburn on 30 Aug
1996 02:56:44 -0400)
Yes, the -k option is common. But how do run you make in
subdirectories?
When you have a loop that runs make in subdirs, you need to decide
whether an error from one of the sub-makes should cause execution to
stop.
IMHO, if you specify -k, execution doesn't stop. make ignores
failures and just keeps trying, pretending everything succeeds (except
for explicit dependencies, like a .o file for a binary). That's what
-k means. I didn't think there weas any question about it.
I also thought that when you ran $(MAKE), most/all makes would pass
their command-line flags to the sub-make. Is that a gmake-ism?
BTW, another argument for using dejagnu occurred to me...
Ummm.. perhaps I misunderstood your original argument. I never meant
to suggest that dejanu wasn't the right thing, nor that we should
necessarily not use it for all tests. I thought you were saying that
we should run all of krb5's tests from a *single* invocation of
runtest (ie: have all the .exp files in subdirectories of a single
test directory). I argued against that because it may be
impossible---some tests may need to be run in conflicting environments
(ie: some may require the current host to be a master server, and some
a slave). I never understood the motivation behind your suggestion .
Perhaps that is because you didn't really suggest it?
Barry
