Hey Dmitry,
I'd like to reply point by point but Rolf's message sums up the way I feel about the framework. I've avoided using it more than I could have and am going to be doing a lot more work with it in the future so I have in interest in seeing it pass 100% on more than just Julliards box. I did want to reply to one question you asked but I'll leave the rest rather than just adding more noise to my original point on fixing the tests for soft dependancies.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com wrote:
Why? Does it magically make something useful? Again, what about other packages built from source?
Other packages built from source are not trying to run third party closed source applications on a platform for which they were not even designed. Its not like there is a whole suite of open source win32 applications out there that use Winelib and are constantly being maintained where breakages are spotted quickly. If someone builds QT or GTK and then builds an application using that, odds are they are going to have much less trouble spotting the breakage because they have the source for both the library and application. In essence the existing poll of Free Software out there that is being constantly built and repackaged (sometimes daily, see gentoo for example), acts as a testing framework for those libraries. Your comparing apples to oranges. We simply don't have the luxury of a large ecosystem catching a regression the way most Linux libraries do. Accepting brokeness in the test suite in any form is simply flawed IMHO.