Re: [PATCH] Document AM_MISSING_PROG.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:24:11AM CET:
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 
> >>By the way, the TODO file seems to have many rusted entries that  
> >>have been lying there for too long or completed since a long time
> >>already.
> >
> >Yes.  If you could provide a proper patch, that would help.  But  
> >please make sure that the stuff you remove really has been fixed
> >properly, that's the big part of the work.  Some of the entries are
> >rather mysterious and some are difficult to understand.
> 
> Yes, that's a tough task.

If in doubt, leaving things as they are may look a bit rusty but should
otherwise be safe.

> >Would be good to also have a test with a program that does not exist,
> >i.e., a test that exposes all aspects of `missing's functionality,
> >OTOH, tests/missing*.test covers most of that already, so this is ok
> >I guess.
> 
> That's what I thought, do I need to write more tests?

I guess you can just fold that into the same test.

> I find the  
> testsuite slow enough despite my 2Ghz Core2Duo ;o  (It'll be better  
> with make -j2, once we include the parallel test feature :D)

But you do know how to limit testing?
  cd tests && TESTS=foo.test make -e check   # VERBOSE=yes

> I'll try to post a revised version of that patch in a couple of days.

Thanks!
Ralf