| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:14:13 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What do you think? Any other ideas? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I personally think that "test" being exposed as a useflag is a hack that shouldn't be perpetuated further. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'd rather have the ability to check for the flag the same way as we check for arch, but without necessitating |
| 9 |
that the test driver use flags are exposed visibly even to people who aren't using FEATURES=test |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Similarly, there's irritation derived from having USE flags that *only* pertain to tests, because they |
| 12 |
turn into null-options when toggled, or pointless REQUIRED_USE rubbish. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd rather we have something that side-steps the need for futher USE flag abuse, and |
| 15 |
made testing flags only visible to users who were *actually* doing testing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Something akin to USE_EXPAND but just for test flags seems pertinent. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Because there's plenty of *other* classes of testing options that we might want |
| 20 |
in the future. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For instance, regression tests, which by necessity create circular dependencies, *should* be |
| 23 |
a visible option. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And I can imagine something like TESTS="-* gentoo" being something that could eventually come into |
| 26 |
existence, which would be a flag that toggled on gentoo supplied tests. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Large complex tools like databases also need graduated control of tests, because |
| 29 |
the current approach is very much "all or nothing" most of the time, when in reality: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-> I want to run *some* sensible tests for all packages |
| 32 |
-> But I don't want to be running test suites that could run for 50+ hours ( sys-libs/db ) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But for people who don't use FEATURES=test, none of those toggles should be something they even |
| 35 |
have to know about, the flags should simply evaporate without it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
And TEST-specific flags should be discouraged from RDEPEND, just like "test" is. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
TEST-specific flags in DEPEND is also somewhat dubious when it comes to --with-beps=y |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I think in the long term, I'd want a TDEPEND or something instead. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I know you're vying for "a small incremental step that just fixes this one niche", |
| 44 |
but this is basically a problem that's been known ( at least by me ) for many years, |
| 45 |
and we're in growing need of a real solution, not a small incremental hack that is |
| 46 |
a disservice to the future we know exists. |
Archives