"make test" target (was Re: [Portland] xdg-utils proof of concept)

[Wichmann, Mats D]

>Yeah, that could work.  I'm definitely more interested in
>non-interactive tests that can be automated, but you're probably right
>that the most interesting results will require interactive testing.
>
>Plus, I'm always a fan of, "Automate the easy stuff, and leave the hard
>stuff manual, until it gets annoying enough that your brain finds a
>trick to automate that too."  ;-)

if you're saying "make test" should do the non-interactive stuff, I
agree.  we can use something else to do the interactive-type stuff.
"make test" implies to me a sanity check that the build/install 
didn't totally blow up, not a full functional test.