If you want to change the skip mechanism on Linux, I've already said that's fine by me. Let's hear from other Linux users: is the mechanism useless to you? Counterproductive? I've got nothing new to say about it. I haven't seen a specific suggestion for what you'd *like* to do here, apart from what appear to be rhetorical devices. > ... > So should we add test_bz2 to expected skips on Windows, as somebody > might not have bz2 libraries in his build environment? Until this hypothetical becomes a reality, no. If it does, perhaps. > ... > There are certainly modules which will never work on certain systems; > in those cases, the mechanism works as designed. In general, you need > to know much more than just the system name to determine whether > skipping a test is expected. Perhaps "skip expected" should be split into "skip expected" and "no fuckin' clue" <wink>. A system that gives users no guidance about which skips are expected isn't attractive either (we've already done that; it didn't work; if the current system could be improved for the systems you run on, please feel free to improve it).
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4