Re: The behavior of "make check"

[Carl Sorensen]

Given that make will not do anything if the source tree has not been changed, I 
see no problem (and plenty of benefit) in having make check do the equivalent 
of make && make check.

Personally, however, I prefer to do

make
make check

rather than 

make && make check

because I want to see my build errors separately from any regression test 
errors.  So even if make check became equivalent to make && make check, I would 
continue to use the commands separately.

It seems to me to be not worth the effort to raise an alarm and then quit.

Thanks,

Carl


On 10/10/19, 10:44 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Dan Eble" 
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> 
wrote:

    Begin forwarded message:
    > 
    > Subject: [testlilyissues:issues] Re: #5564 Fix conversion warnings in 
beaming code
    > Date: October 10, 2019 at 12:08:48 EDT
    > I'm sorry to contribute to your frustration. I can see what the process 
is, but my question (which I direct to LilyPond developers in general) is 
whether it is justified that make check run to completion using an out-of-date 
lilypond rather than either rebuilding it first or raising some kind of alarm. 
Must we continue to put up with it?
    > 
    > The purpose of make is to follow dependencies and do exactly what needs 
to be done. The difference in behavior between these cases seems contrary to 
that:
    > 
    > make && make check
    > make check
    — 
    Dan
    
    _______________________________________________
    lilypond-devel mailing list
    address@hidden
    https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel