| 1 |
Michael Palimaka posted on Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:35:26 +1100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 18/11/16 01:58, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 06:16:27PM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> ==== USE flags ==== |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> While it is preferable to test every USE flag combination, this is not |
| 8 |
>>> always possible or appropriate. The package may have a large number of |
| 9 |
>>> USE flags, a long compile time, or the stabilisation in question may |
| 10 |
>>> just not call for it. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> In cases where all USE flags combinations are not being tested, it is |
| 13 |
>>> still recommended to test: |
| 14 |
>>> * with all USE flags enabled * with all USE flags disabled |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Does this mean we are changing our policy to support users running |
| 17 |
>> USE="-*"? I'm asking for clarification because in the past we have |
| 18 |
>> always told users that if they do that they are on their own. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Testing with all USE flags disabled is more about catching build |
| 21 |
> failures than guaranteeing the package will necessarily do something |
| 22 |
> useful. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Along the same line but with all flags enabled, how does that apply to |
| 25 |
exclusive-or flags such as the qt4/qt5 thing that has been quite common? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Sure common sense suggests "all" doesn't really mean "all" in that case, |
| 28 |
but given the opportunity presented by the update, if a guideline for the |
| 29 |
case can be made explicit... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives