Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is probably a much broader conversation. I remember when I first > started packaging Git for Cygwin, I produced a release that didn't > have support for HTTPS URLs due to a missing dependency in my build > environment. The build and test suite all passed -- it assumed I just > wanted to build a release that didn't have HTTPS support -- so some > relatively critical function was silently skipped. I don't know how to > avoid that sort of issue other than relying on (a) user bug (or at > least missing function) reports and (b) folk building Git for > themselves/others periodically going through the output of the > configure scripts and the skipped subtests to make sure only expected > things get missed; neither of those options seem great to me. I agree with you that there needs a good way to enumerate what the unsatisfied prerequisites for a particular build are. That would have helped in your HTTPS situation. But that is a separate issue how we should determine a lazy prerequisite for any feature is satisified. "We have this feature that our code utilizes. If it is not working correctly, then we can expect our code that depends on it would not work, and it is no use testing" is what the test prerequisite system tries to achieve. That is quite different from "the frotz feature could work here as we see a binary /usr/bin/frotz installed, so let's go test our code that depends on it---we'll find out if the installed frotz is not what we expect, or way too old to help our code, as the test will break and let us notice."
