[pacman-dev] Fileconflict error...

[Xavier]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
>> I was thinking of adding some kind of "self.knownoutcome" flag to
>> pactest, and have that basically suppress the return code incrementing
>> if it was set to "fail" or something. (or just
>> self.knownfailure=true.) Does that make sense to anyone? The problem
>> is right now we have no way of distinguishing from fails like
>> fileconflict 001 & 002 (which we know will fail from now until they
>> are fixed) from fails that pop up after a patch has been applied. The
>> second ones are the regressions and the ones we really care about; the
>> first are not quite as important in a normal run of pactest.
>>
>
> Hm. This inspired me to ask the following question:
> Shouldn't we document somewhere the "known issues"?
>

I agree, behind all these known pactest failures, there is usually a
longer explanation on the ML or on the bug tracker.
But then, a simple link inside the pactest would be enough.