Comment 11 for bug 1256185

Addtional feedback on the tests from IRC on #SDL
That confirms my analysis of being no common "make check" tests and that we might be able to use a few for dep8, but nothing like a real test in the way build time tests usually are used.

[09:49] <cpaelzer> Hi, I'm wondering about the tests in the test subdir of libsdl2
[09:50] <cpaelzer> are they really tests - they seem to be more examples
[09:50] <cpaelzer> If they are tests I'm looking for a way to "run" them e.g. to verify a build
[09:50] <cpaelzer> but reading through the makefiles so far indicates that this isn't meant like a classic "make check"
[09:51] <cpaelzer> I only found libSDL2_test.a built by default but don't know what to do with that either
[09:51] <cpaelzer> If one can share a few details let me know
[10:59] <demonicmaniac3> cpaelzer: they aren't automated tests you can use in a build system to check
[10:59] <demonicmaniac3> they all require manual closing and playing around with input manually and what not
[11:00] <demonicmaniac3> the only thing you can check is sample application not crashing due to missing libraries or what not
[11:00] <demonicmaniac3> by starting and killing with quit and checking exit status
[11:01] <DarkMio> cpaelzer: so it is no unit tests but a "hey developer, before you waste hundreds of hours, try if this stuff works for your system, kthxbye."
[11:03] <cpaelzer> ok thats how I felt looking at it DarkMio
[11:03] <cpaelzer> thanks for the info
[11:03] <cpaelzer> also thanks demonicmaniac3
[11:03] <cpaelzer> I got a few running which could be used as post build verifiers, but as you said no usual automated unit tests
[11:04] <DarkMio> also I believe adding now unit tests to SDL would have no real benefit, since the core code basis is pretty much as stable as it gets