| 1 |
Lest it be thought that the perl herd (all whopping 3 of us if you are only |
| 2 |
interested in a fresh body count, less than that if you want people hours |
| 3 |
devoted to perl) were ignoring this thread... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Surely it seems to be a problem for some people. FEATURES=maketest should |
| 8 |
> cover this, but the perl maintainers have the ebuild written in a way that |
| 9 |
> forces src_test even if "maketest" isn't enabled. Ex.: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Must say, its hardly fair to point to a FEATURE that wasn't added until June |
| 12 |
for a bug comment that I made in February. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I can understand that, perhaps, perl@g.o. want users to run tests to make |
| 15 |
> sure it's sane before install. However, I don't think it should be |
| 16 |
> forced, especially since the testing part itself seems to be buggy -- a |
| 17 |
> problem for people, even if it's not for devs. That's separate and |
| 18 |
> regardless of whether the tests pass or fail. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The value added by doing the tests is invaluable to locating the problems in |
| 21 |
a perl install before it is on their system. Not all perl problems will |
| 22 |
manifest themselves on first use - but the tests help us eliminate most of |
| 23 |
them ahead of time. I understand on irc that we can now reject bugs if the |
| 24 |
user hasn't used maketests in their features. Can't say that I agree with |
| 25 |
this, but if someone would be willing to provide me with corrabarating |
| 26 |
(spelling be damned ;) ) policy I'd be happy to make this change. This |
| 27 |
change also means that we will be updating the 400 plus ebuilds that we |
| 28 |
support so that make tests in modules will only be done under this feature. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> So, my question is, why was the above bug was closed CANTFIX? Telling |
| 32 |
> people to hack the ebuild to avoid a buggy test routine is not a solution. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Because it was closed as such long before the option was available. Perhaps |
| 35 |
its just interpretation on this end, but this was a rather scathing email, |
| 36 |
out of the blue, from someone with dev status who could reopen the bug, and |
| 37 |
who could have at least bothered to make a single comment in the bug to such |
| 38 |
an affect. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
No hard feelings, I need coffee :) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-mike |
Archives