| 1 |
Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:38:18 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'd like to propose a new USE flag, qa-test or a better name, to handle |
| 4 |
> these cases in a consistent way. This would give us a way to |
| 5 |
> differentiate between tests that everyone should run and tests that only |
| 6 |
> devs and arch-testers would be interested in, making enabling |
| 7 |
> FEATURES=test by default in a future EAPI a little more palatable. |
| 8 |
> Use of this flag would be up to the maintainer, of course. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm confused. I'm sure there's a good reason for the different proposal |
| 11 |
here, but I don't know what it is, and I'd like to know: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Previously there was discussion of RESTRICT=test, to be set for just such |
| 14 |
"user probably doesn't want this on" type situations. The proposal then |
| 15 |
was to turn FEATURES=test on by default for a specific EAPI, and then as |
| 16 |
packages moved to it, they'd add RESTRICT=test where appropriate (with a |
| 17 |
comment documenting why, of course), and anything of that EAPI or later |
| 18 |
that didn't have RESTRICT=test would automatically get built for and have |
| 19 |
its tests run by default. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Now I see this proposal for making it a USE flag, which may or may not be |
| 22 |
more appropriate, I don't know. I do know I'd love to see someone |
| 23 |
explain the differences. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives