| 1 |
On Wednesday 07 October 2009 13:13:31 Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:38:18 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 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. |
| 15 |
That force-disables tests. I'm not aware of an override for it, |
| 16 |
RESTRICT="test" basically means "don't bother with tests, they are suicidal" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> The proposal then |
| 19 |
> was to turn FEATURES=test on by default for a specific EAPI, |
| 20 |
... which is never more than a proposal by people not fixing the packages. |
| 21 |
Just FYI, building gnome in a chroot I hit 9 test-failures out of ~150 |
| 22 |
packages. That quota of failure is roughly stable all across the tree, so |
| 23 |
unless someone starts fixing the ~1000 failures it's just not viable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Oh, and someone needs to maintain and forward-port the fixes. And someone |
| 26 |
needs to send me some hardware so I can find the time to run all those tests - |
| 27 |
on my quadcore boost takes ~4h with tests, which is just prohibitive. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> and then as |
| 30 |
> packages moved to it, they'd add RESTRICT=test where appropriate (with a |
| 31 |
> comment documenting why, of course), and anything of that EAPI or later |
| 32 |
> that didn't have RESTRICT=test would automatically get built for and have |
| 33 |
> its tests run by default. |
| 34 |
Feel free to have FEATURES="test" enabled in a dev profile or in your |
| 35 |
make.conf. Forcing it on users is just insane. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Now I see this proposal for making it a USE flag, which may or may not be |
| 38 |
> more appropriate, I don't know. I do know I'd love to see someone |
| 39 |
> explain the differences. |
| 40 |
It's a bit more selective. RESTRICT is a global "no, this is broken", the new |
| 41 |
useflag (or more fine-grained restrict?) says "there are tests, but they might |
| 42 |
make things explode" so that those that do want the tests can easily use them |
| 43 |
without making users sad puppied. And if there's anything we don't want it is |
| 44 |
more sad puppies. |
Archives