Breaking testing.sh

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 05:03:46PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 08:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:36:47PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Congratulations, the introduction of --force means our test
> > > infrastructure can no longer be used to test against the gnu utilities so
> > > we can confirm our behavior against mainstream.
> > >
> > > That should _NOT_ be the default.  The darn flag should go the _other_
> > > way...
> >
> > uhh, what ?
> 
> I'd been planning on submitting the new busybox testing to the Linux Test 
> Project people, since they have so few command line tests.  It was also 
> designed so that I could trivially run the same set of tests against some 
> other version of the command in question (like the gnu one) to check 
> compatability.
> 
> Now it's hardwired to be busybox-specific by default, for absolutely no reason 
> as far as I can see.

how ?  i dont really see anything wrong with code as it is ... --force only
controls whether an applet will be tested even if it wasnt detected in the
busybox binary

if _BB_CONFIG_DEP is not set in the env, then --force has no meaning at all

we can change config_is_set() to be like 'if .config doesnt exist, assume we
want to test the applet'
-mike