[PATCH intel-gpu-tools 00/10] Upgrade module configuration and packaging (reposted to .cc)

Matt Dew marcoz at osource.org
Wed Jan 4 09:12:22 PST 2012

On 01/04/2012 08:39 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 01/04/12 06:38, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Originally we've abused make check, but that turned out to be a bad
>> idea because make distcheck automatically runs that. And the tests
>> check the kernel and not intel-gpu-tools itself, so that didn't make
>> much sense. Hence we added make test with a quick hack to run make
>> check with a different set of tests (see the test: target in
>> tests/Makefile.am).
> Right - make check doesn't make sense because you don't want distcheck
> to fail when your kernel driver has a bug, and because many of us build
> our packages on servers without Intel graphics devices installed.

This is the same 'make check' that the tinderbox uses right?
Thread: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2012-January/028225.html

Forgive me if I'm being dumb here. My thought, on pretty much no sleep 
last night, is should tinderbox be using make test instead of, or in 
addition to, make check?


>> One thing I'm wondering is whether we could easily ship these tests in
>> some form, so that users could run them from the distro package
>> instead of grabbing the sources.
> Should distros just be shipping the entire intel-gpu-tools package,
> including the tests?

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list