| 1 |
Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first* |
| 6 |
>> time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every |
| 7 |
>> time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do |
| 8 |
>> that much with the packages in our tree now, do we? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Care to turn that into a reasoned argument rather than what appears to |
| 11 |
> be a knee-jerk reaction? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not a knee jerk reaction, just a strong one. One of the key reasons why |
| 14 |
mandatory tests were not desired was the fact that sometimes much more |
| 15 |
stuff will be installed than what you'd normally get. Exhibit A: |
| 16 |
robbat2's message just sent on diradm that normally just needs openldap |
| 17 |
with USE=minimal, but building for tests requires all of openldap, |
| 18 |
samba, etc. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd like to think we aren't in the practice of forcing users to install |
| 21 |
cruft on their systems. If you need more examples from the last thread, |
| 22 |
assuming you don't still have local archives, I could scrounge 'em from |
| 23 |
gmane I suppose, though we're both equally capable of typing in search |
| 24 |
phrases. The tests subject wasn't brought up that long ago, either. |
Archives