| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:07:26 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dnia 27 kwietnia 2017 23:42:34 CEST, Alexis Ballier |
| 5 |
> <aballier@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 6 |
> >On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:14:13 +0200 |
| 7 |
> >Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >> b. those tests can easily be enabled, and that fact is recorded |
| 10 |
> >> in the installed package metadata, |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> c. the flag can easily be used in RESTRICT="" constraint to easily |
| 13 |
> >> disable all the tests. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> >I see that as a rather important disadvantage. Why would we want to |
| 17 |
> >record that in VDB ? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> To know whether the tests were run. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't think it belongs there. Unless running tests or not makes a |
| 22 |
difference on the installed package, in which case it is a bug in the |
| 23 |
package. Remember: test useflag is a hack that portage auto-enables |
| 24 |
when running tests and is not taken into account with --newuse. Plus, |
| 25 |
I've learnt recently there are some subtle differences between portage |
| 26 |
and PMS, like you have to manually feed RESTRICT="test? ( test )" in |
| 27 |
order for the desired behavior to be PMS compliant. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> >> What do you think? Any other ideas? |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> >why not simply a new RESTRICT value ? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> How would you apply it to part of the tests? How would you prevent |
| 36 |
> users from running networked tests by default? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Running part of the tests can get messy with RESTRICT, indeed. |
| 39 |
Maybe a more manual approach could work then: If ENABLE_NETWORK_TESTS |
| 40 |
variable is set in environment then run networked tests otherwise |
| 41 |
display a warning. |
Archives