bug#23521: XFAIL

[Reuben Thomas]

On 20 May 2016 at 15:58, Gavin Smith <address@hidden> wrote:

On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> wrote:
>> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that
>> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an
>> extra driver that converts expected errors into success codes for the
>> automake test harness.
>
> What do you mean precisely by “an extra driver”?

This would be a reference to a "custom test driver".
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Overview-of-Custom-Test-Drivers-Support.html#Overview-of-Custom-Test-Drivers-Support

​Thanks, that's what I meant.

--

http://rrt.sc3d.org