| 1 |
On 02/27/2010 12:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/26/10 22:02, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/26/2010 10:50 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> src_test() { |
| 6 |
>>> if hasq sandbox ${FEATURES}; then |
| 7 |
>>> ewarn "zzuf tests don't work correctly when sandbox is enabled," |
| 8 |
>>> ewarn "skipping tests. If you want to run the testsuite, please" |
| 9 |
>>> ewarn "disable sandbox for this build." |
| 10 |
>>> return |
| 11 |
>>> fi |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Testing FEATURES from ebuild? You shouldn't do that. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I disagree. That's a good way not to fail there, unless someone has a |
| 16 |
> better idea how to make that work. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And I'd appreciate it if PMS would stop refusing to document FEATURES. |
| 19 |
> (Double negative? I mean: PMS should document reality) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I won't mind if someone "fixes" that in a way that still has the same |
| 22 |
> functionality, but I honestly don't see it as a bug, so I'll leave it as |
| 23 |
> it is. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279465 |
| 27 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174335 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Even this is better, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
RESTRICT="test" # Doesn't work with sandbox enabled, see bug 279465 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
My point is simple: If you don't like the situation / policy, try to |
| 34 |
change it, don't go solo with singular ebuild. |
Archives