Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 1 (Was: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 12:17 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > > Er, no, I'm explaining why enforcing src_test for EAPI 1 will be
> > > > helpful for an awful lot of Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > except that you back the tree into a corner that it cannot come out of
> >
> > Huh? Not at all. If a package can't use its test suite, the ebuild can
> > set RESTRICT=test.
> >
> > > > Please refrain from that kind of comment. It doesn't help anyone.
> > >
> > > the answer is the same: talk to the QA team to get the tree into a
> > > state where having src_test enabled by default is feasible and then
> > > the QA team can change the profile
> >
> > That isn't going to happen any time soon. There are too many changes
> > and the impact of turning it on is too high. A gradual migration via
> > EAPI is much safer and much more useful.
> >
> > > enforcing via spec is the wrong way to go here ... spec is for
> > > defining how the ebuilds work, not for forcing policy down peoples
> > > throats
> >
> > And whether or not src_test is called is part of how ebuilds work.
> > Policy is whether or not src_test is required to do something in all
> > situations, or whether it can be RESTRICTed out as necessary.
>
> </snip>
>
> First off...wow...long time since I've been active...so if anyone wants
> to discount my comments based on that alone feel free. I'm trying to get
> back in the game and I think a few e-mails as participation might be
> best...hopefully you'll actually see me online soon.
>
> Now on to the real topic at hand. For src_test I see things this way.
>

Welcome back to the real (Gentoo, that is) world. :)  Good summary of
the situation, I think (although I've snipped it since everyone's read
it once.)

--- snip ---

> Just my 2 cents...
>
> --Dan

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)